Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:41:49 +0100 From: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 0d316feccaf8 - main - sysutils/cpdup-FreeBSD: Add FreeBSD fork of cpdup Message-ID: <0a1df7c1-e4ad-4439-b4ac-376f18ed50cc@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Z76STq6XHJHpVxMH@FreeBSD.org> References: <202502252200.51PM0JNl002582@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <Z76STq6XHJHpVxMH@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26/02/25 05:02, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:00:19PM +0000, Guido Falsi wrote: >> commit 0d316feccaf89c1bd804d6001274426a7135c93a >> >> sysutils/cpdup-FreeBSD: Add FreeBSD fork of cpdup >> >> Add a fork of cpdup, including patches to support copy_file_range(2) >> and allowing to choose checksum algorithm. > > Any reason not to add this to the `sysutils/cpdup' itself? If there are > fears it might break something or be not fit for other reasons, it can be > hidden under option. This is not cpdup but a fork, so I don't think it would be correct to commandeer the original cpdup port and use the fork there. These are actually separate projects at this point, users should be well aware they are using a fork and able to choose which one to use. Building two separate projects coming from different repositories, and with different names and version numbers from the same port depending on an option looks even more strange to me. Is this even really supported by ports without hacks? -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0a1df7c1-e4ad-4439-b4ac-376f18ed50cc>