Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:42:15 +0100 From: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> To: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding functionality to a port Message-ID: <bc50a61a-1341-0c70-c427-f1717e2d871a@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <YZFXby/ktthO9Khx@fc.opsec.eu> References: <4ca51765-b556-3f12-5809-5aadbf6dccca@ohreally.nl> <YZEskkPi2%2BcX9hrZ@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> <YZFXby/ktthO9Khx@fc.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
NOTE replying with my FreeBSD.org address to make the reply reach the mailing list, sorry my previous messages on this thread bounced. On 14/11/21 19:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > 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. Very difficult, and I'd really would like to avoid to make the FreeBSD project documents some kind of legal codex. > > [...] >> 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. > As I stated in another (provate message) I just realized that this is at least partly covered by "POLA". IN fact I would very astonished if some port (say firefox for example) started behaving very differently than it does on other OSes for no good technical reason. OTOH a valid technical reason could be dropping some functionality depending on some API not available on FreeBSD, just to make an example from the top of my head. -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bc50a61a-1341-0c70-c427-f1717e2d871a>