From nobody Sun Nov 14 18:37:35 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 644DB1866974
	for <freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org>; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:37:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from pi@freebsd.org)
Received: from fc.opsec.eu (fc.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200:4::4])
	(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 4Hsgzk2VN5z4btM
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:37:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from pi@freebsd.org)
Received: from pi by fc.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.95 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <pi@freebsd.org>)
	id 1mmKNj-0008K0-J6;
	Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:37:35 +0100
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:37:35 +0100
From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org>
To: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Adding functionality to a port
Message-ID: <YZFXby/ktthO9Khx@fc.opsec.eu>
References: <4ca51765-b556-3f12-5809-5aadbf6dccca@ohreally.nl>
 <YZEskkPi2+cX9hrZ@home.opsec.eu>
 <480b44f5-0674-e645-8413-a1a368cfc393@ohreally.nl>
 <YZExLlXP3uEjrvyF@fc.opsec.eu>
 <fb5e514d-1458-9b49-1882-b64d5386cdfa@madpilot.net>
 <YZFGCoblQOHPnPWe@fc.opsec.eu>
 <e07b5a48-3465-c92b-ee4b-f2fc91e0202f@madpilot.net>
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports
List-Help: <mailto:ports+help@freebsd.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ports@freebsd.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ports+subscribe@freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ports+unsubscribe@freebsd.org>
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: <e07b5a48-3465-c92b-ee4b-f2fc91e0202f@madpilot.net>
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Hsgzk2VN5z4btM
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org;
	none
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00];
	 local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org];
	 ASN(0.00)[asn:12502, ipnet:2001:14f8::/32, country:DE]
X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N

Hi!

> > > It is also not correct to "commandeer" a port to force users on design
> > > choices in conflict with the upstream project.

> > Is there a section in the ports maintainers guide or somewhere
> > else that mandates this ?

> Sorry, my fault I did not make me clear maybe, this is all my own opinion.
> So is what follows.
> 
> Anyway I don't see it as a good beahviour to take a port of some upstream
> software and move it in a contrasting direction than the upstream.

I agree. The problem is that this is very difficult to codify
into some policy.

[...]
> The name "ports" implies it is not the place for original development. I
> also agree we often have a disconnection on how things are named and what
> they actually are or behave, so I would not have any strong reply if you
> were to state the the name cannot be held as a reason for policy.

So some sort of rule might be: If the functionality varies from
the upstream-project in a major way, please use a derived or different
name for the port.

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