From nobody Sun Nov 14 15:34:42 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF6F18481AA for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 15:34:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Hsbws2C5Tz4YtH for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 15:34:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.94.2 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1mmHWk-000HOR-U1; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 16:34:42 +0100 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 16:34:42 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Rob LA LAU Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding functionality to a port Message-ID: References: <4ca51765-b556-3f12-5809-5aadbf6dccca@ohreally.nl> List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ca51765-b556-3f12-5809-5aadbf6dccca@ohreally.nl> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Hsbws2C5Tz4YtH X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Hello, > I'm wondering what the rules/guidelines are for adding functionality to a > port, that is not in the upstream package. I can't find anything about > this in the porters' documentation. > > Background: > I'm not a porter myself (planning to be one, but that's irrelevant for my > current question). > I ran into a buggy `periodic' script. And when looking for the port > maintainer to report the bug, I found that this script is not part of the > upstream package, but was added to the port by the port maintainer. > So I'm wondering now whether I should report the bug in the `periodic' > script, or ask the maintainer to remove the script from the port (and > maybe submit it as a separate port). Please submit a problem report via bugs.freebsd.org for the port in question. If you provide a patch for the periodic script upstream, that would probably be fine as well, if they accept it. The maintainer can decide what should happen to the buggy script... > And in more general it would be interesting to know when changes made to > a port are considered too drastic, and when port maintainers should be > asked to join the upstream development team instead of (or in addition > to) maintaining the port. You can ask the maintainer if he wants to join upstream, but if there's no interest, there's no need to pressure one into upstream 8-) -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 Now what ?