From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 5 11:31:01 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30125106564A for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:31:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0632F8FC19 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:31:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 46A305C5C; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 07:31:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 07:31:20 -0400 From: Wesley Shields To: Paul Schmehl Message-ID: <20080405113120.GC62375@atarininja.org> References: <08BCD7E7030EE547F4F9C93B@Macintosh.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <08BCD7E7030EE547F4F9C93B@Macintosh.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New squil ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:31:01 -0000 On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:59PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: > I'm the port maintainer for security/sguil-sensor, security/sguil-server > and security/sguil-client. These ports go together and need to be updated > together. At present, the version is 0.6.1.3. The new ports will be > version 0.7.0 and have some very significant changes from the previous > version. > > Also, I am the port maintainer of security/barnyard and the slave port > security/barnyard-sguil6 port. > > I have some questions about how to do this update. > > Should I patch the existing ports? If I do, the committer would need to > commit all three ports simultaneously or someone might install mis-matched > versions. If you want to take this approach just note in the PR that all three must be committed together. > Should we rename the existing ports to sguil6-sensor -server and -client > (or sguil-sensor6 - server6 -client6) and then install the new ones as new > ports named as the present ones are? Only if there is a desire to support/maintain the old version. If you want to take this approach you should ask for a repocopy of sguil-sensor to sguil6-sensor and then have the update apply to sguil-sensor, so that history is maintained. Same goes for the other ports. > Should we rename the barnyard slave port to barnyard-sguil? If it is not tied to a specific version of sguil then I'd say it should be renamed (via a repocopy, as to maintain history). > I'm not sure what the best way is to proceed. The easiest thing to do would be to update the ports without a repocopy and note in the PR that the updates must be applied together. And for the update of barnyard I'd rename it to remove the "6" if possible. > A gzipped tarball of the three new ports is attached in case anyone wants > to test them. Inside the tarball is gzipped tarballs of each of the three > ports. DO NOT untar them in /usr/ports/security or you will overwrite the > existing ports (which will then be overwritten in turn by your next > c(v)sup). Unfortunately I can't review these changes at this time. -- WXS