[RfD] Merging fortune ports
Howdy all, I happened to notice that there are already several misc/fortune* ports and it takes only the slightest bit of imagination to come up with several more. Hell, I alone can think of at least a dozen or so. However, we probably don't want to fill the ports tree with a whole bunch of ports that are pretty much the same except for the one or two files they install. Moreover, who is to say which fortune ports get accepted and which don't? This got me thinking: Would it be a good idea to merge all fortune* ports into one and use the OPTIONS framework to let the user select which cookie jar(s) they wish to install? For what it's worth: I'd be happy to do the work (except for the actual commits, since I lack the necessary rights) and wouldn't mind taking (or sharing) maintainership. Anyway, I just thought I'd put the idea out there; comments are welcome. For your reference: I also started a thread about this on the FreeBSD Forums (https://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=43931). AvW -- I'm not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example. pgppn_G__XqbU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RfD] Merging fortune ports
Hi, On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:27:10 +0100 A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven free...@skysmurf.nl wrote: I happened to notice that there are already several misc/fortune* ports and it takes only the slightest bit of imagination to come up with several more. Hell, I alone can think of at least a dozen or so. However, we probably don't want to fill the ports tree with a whole bunch of ports that are pretty much the same except for the one or two files they install. Moreover, who is to say which fortune ports get accepted and which don't? This got me thinking: Would it be a good idea to merge all fortune* ports into one and use the OPTIONS framework to let the user select which cookie jar(s) they wish to install? this is a good idea. Erich ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RfD] Merging fortune ports
A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven free...@skysmurf.nl writes: I happened to notice that there are already several misc/fortune* ports and it takes only the slightest bit of imagination to come up with several more. Hell, I alone can think of at least a dozen or so. However, we probably don't want to fill the ports tree with a whole bunch of ports that are pretty much the same except for the one or two files they install. Moreover, who is to say which fortune ports get accepted and which don't? This got me thinking: Would it be a good idea to merge all fortune* ports into one and use the OPTIONS framework to let the user select which cookie jar(s) they wish to install? That would be a fine idea, as long as it doesn't raise any license problems. We don't actually consider or track licenses on any fortune files or ports. I don't think that's a problem at the moment, but it's very difficult to be positive, especially with regard to collection copyrights. To be honest, I was surprised at how *few* fortune files we have in ports. I maintain three or four jars for my own use, and expected that at least *some* people would have shared theirs. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RfD] Merging fortune ports
Erich Dollansky wrote: this is a good idea. Lowell Gilbert wrote: That would be a fine idea, Thank you both for the feedback. as long as it doesn't raise any license problems. We don't actually consider or track licenses on any fortune files or ports. I don't think that's a problem at the moment, but it's very difficult to be positive, especially with regard to collection copyrights. That's a good point. However, considering that sites such as Wikiquote appear to have no legal problems, I think it should be ok as long as we don't go overboard by quoting entire (chapters of) books, (scenes in) movies/TV-shows, songs etc. In fact regarding the latter, it appears to be fine to republish song lyrics as long as they are properly attributed. And of course we can always install the proper attributions or copyright notices as part of the port in the form of documentation. I am by no means a legal expert though, so if anybody cares to weigh in, then please do. To be honest, I was surprised at how *few* fortune files we have in ports. I maintain three or four jars for my own use, and expected that at least *some* people would have shared theirs. That's another good point. And if we indeed go ahead with this plan, you'd of course be welcome to contribute your jars if you like :-) In the meantime, while waiting for more responses, I've outlined what I think would be a good procedure to follow: 1. PR ports/184546 (New port: misc/fortune-mod-offensive) can be put on hold pending this discussion. I'll submit a follow-up as soon as I'm done with this message. 2. Specifically email this proposal to everybody who currently maintains a fortune port. I'll do that ASAP too. 3. While the discussion is still open, I can forward the comments from the Forums, if any come forth. 4. After a certain amount of time the Ports Committee (if there is such a thing, otherwise anyone with sufficient authority) will have to make a definite decision. If the proposal is rejected: 5a. The aforementioned PR can be committed. If the proposal is accepted: 5b. Any licensing issues need to be hashed out (see above). 6b. The new port can be created (and a PR submitted for that). Perhaps there could be a period before the first commit where people can submit their jars for inclusion. 7b. A web page should be created, which among other things explains how people can submit jars or corrections/additions. I can do that. 8b. The current fortune ports should probably be marked DEPRECATED. 9b. Which in turn I imagine would warrant an entry into /usr/ports/UPDATING. 10b. If anyone wishes to share maintainership, we'd probably need to set up an email alias. That should be no problem. AvW -- I'm not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example. pgpN7r6tv1ghA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RfD] Merging fortune ports
On 21/12/2013 14:27, A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven wrote: Would it be a good idea to merge all fortune* ports into one and use the OPTIONS framework to let the user select which cookie jar(s) they wish to install? This will make it impossible for people that use binary packages to choose which fortune cookie jars they want installed -- in effect, they'll always get whatever the default setting is from OPTIONS. Better to have separate ports for the different cookie jars (ie. as we have now), and an overall meta-port with the OPTIONS settings allowing people to choose what they want. See lang/php55-extensions for an example of the sort of thing I mean. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
