Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 14 Nov 2021 16:54:22 +0100
From:      Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org>
To:        Rob LA LAU <freebsd@ohreally.nl>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Adding functionality to a port
Message-ID:  <YZExLlXP3uEjrvyF@fc.opsec.eu>
In-Reply-To: <480b44f5-0674-e645-8413-a1a368cfc393@ohreally.nl>
References:  <4ca51765-b556-3f12-5809-5aadbf6dccca@ohreally.nl> <YZEskkPi2%2BcX9hrZ@home.opsec.eu> <480b44f5-0674-e645-8413-a1a368cfc393@ohreally.nl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi!

> On 14/11/2021 16:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > 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-)
> 
> Don't worry: I don't want to pressure anyone into doing anything. :)
> 
> But I would like to know how much functionality a port maintainer can add
> to a package before it is considered too much.

There's no rule that limits it.

Upstream can also hunt for functional changes 8-) and integrate
them 8-)

> At some point the port will no longer represent the upstream package, and
> I'd really like to know where this limit is.

There are two aspects:

- If the changes are useful, upstream can integrate them...
- If the changes collide with upstream ideas, who's to judge,
  as long as no license issues are created ?

Maybe it makes it easier to understand if you tell us the port
in question ?

-- 
pi@FreeBSD.org         +49 171 3101372                  Now what ?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YZExLlXP3uEjrvyF>