02.01.2026 12:24, Edd Barrett пишет: > Hi again, > > Sorry to continue the syncthing saga, but: > > On Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 10:26:27PM +0000, Edd Barrett wrote: >> If you look at the CVS log for patch-lib_build_build_go, then we see that the >> "kill phone home" change was committed by job@, perhaps in agreement with >> kn@. >> >> If you want to change that behaviour, you'd have to take it up with them. >> Personally I don't mind it asking on first run, but if other developers >> object, >> then we will keep it. I'm not touching this for now. > > Thinking about this some more, I wonder if we misunderstood the intent of > patch-lib_build_build_go. > > The log message for the commit that added the patch says: > > ``` > Unbreak syncthing, update to 1.23.2rc1, disable phone-home > ```
Original thread: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=167689062106602&w=2 | This turns up in 'syncthing serve --no-browser' output, I don't like it, | can you disable it? | | [2QRYX] 2023/02/20 19:36:45 INFO: Anonymous usage reporting is \ | always enabled for candidate releases. tl;dr: I asked whether job could disable it and he did, but what or why is lost to me. > > so that patch was introduced *as part of an update to a release candidate*. > > And in build.go, there's a comment: > > ``` > // Release candidate builds are also "betas" from this point of view and > // will have that debugging enabled. In addition, some features are > // forced for release candidates - auto upgrade, and usage reporting. > ``` > > In light of this, looks like the intent of the patch was not to disable > syncthing from asking for permission to send usage reports, but instead to > disable *unconditionally sending usage reports in release candidates*. > > kn@, job@ -- is that correct? We don't mind syncthing asking for permission to > send usage reports? Yes, that's what I'd expect: Do not send anything by default, but certainly retain any features asking or doing that. > > If asking is fine, we can simplify what I committed yesterday slightly: > > - remove the patch that disables asking. > > - optionally: put back patch-lib_build_build_go, just in case we ever package > a release candidate again in the future. Or just leave a Makefile comment near the version for porters to consider this. > > Cheers >
