Klemens Nanni <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 06:29:57PM +0100, Omar Polo wrote: >> Klemens Nanni <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 04:22:18PM +0100, Omar Polo wrote: >> >> please find attached a tarball for pounce: >> >> >> >> % pkg_info pounce >> >> Information for inst:pounce-3.0 >> >> >> >> Comment: >> >> multi-client, TLS-only IRC bouncer >> >> >> >> Description: >> >> pounce is a multi-client, TLS-only IRC bouncer. It maintains a >> >> persistent connection to an IRC server, acting as a proxy and buffer >> >> for a number of clients. When a client connects, any messages >> >> received since it last disconnected will be relayed to it. Unlike >> >> some other bouncers, pounce uses a single buffer for all IRC messages, >> >> which acts as a queue from which each client reads messages >> >> independently. >> >> >> >> Maintainer: Omar Polo <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> WWW: https://git.causal.agency/pounce/about/ >> >> >> >> >> >> It's from the same authors as net/catgirl and works in a similar way. >> >> I'm using it on a i386 box and works like a charm, it was way easier to >> >> wrap my head around it than with znc. >> >> >> >> OK/comments/feedbacks? >> > >> > OK kn >> > >> > You could build and install the extra/ tools via post-build and >> > post-install. Would be even nicer if upstream provided an extra target >> > or so building these, so you'd eventually have to just set >> > ALL_TARGET='all extra' or so in our port to ship them. >> >> Agreed, I don't think I'll use them but they seems useful. I cannot >> even test them because they don't accept self-signed certificates and >> I'm running the bouncer in my LAN. >> >> Here's an improved tarball. I'm calling the configure scripts for the >> extras in post-configure, otherwise too many variables are unset and the >> port become messier. >> >> still OK? :) > > Hand-rolled build/install targets should probably be modeled after what > the real targets do, i.e.
I've started with that initially, but then trimmed some variables out to try keeping the lines short. I do agree thought that consistency is better than saving a line or two, and also some of the "simplifications" I did weren't really a good idea I guess (like MAKE vs MAKE_PROGRAM.) > [...] > > If upstream would provide targets for this in the global Makefile, this > would all be obsolete and fall under a single `make' for us porters, so > probably worth persuing. I'll try to talk with upstream, if anything for patching the extras to accept self-signed certificates like litterbox and catgirl do. > OK kn either way. Your targets work, albeit being inconsistent with how > bsd.port.mk usually does it. Pick what you want or leave the extras > out, I have only tested pounce(1) itself. since we've only tested pounce itself I'm changing my mind and I'm now inclined to avoid installing the extras, I don't feel comfortable committing stuff nobody tested and we can just as well add them with the next update eventually. I'll think about it a bit still and import them tomorrow if nobody objects. Thanks :)
