Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:57:41 +0100 (CET) From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, wes@softweyr.com, brett@lariat.org, (Brett Taylor) <brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu> Subject: Re: volunteering (was Re: Ports) Message-ID: <XFMail.990310085741.asmodai@wxs.nl> In-Reply-To: <199903100127.SAA19325@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10-Mar-99 Terry Lambert wrote: >> I've told you two times now there are plenty of ways to contribute by >> maintaining ports. Hell, you don't even have to become the maintainer. >> Take a port that doesn't work under 2.2.8 now due to the changeover to >> ELF. Fix it so it works for 2.2.8 without breaking it for -STABLE. >> Make >> a diff, send-pr to ports and get it committed. It's not that hard. You >> don't have to ask anyone. You don't _need_ permission to go futz w/ the >> port from the maintainer. You SHOULD submit your diffs to him before >> doing the send-pr but that's not a big deal. If you want to be really >> polite you would send an email saying "I'm trying to make this port work >> for 2.2.8 wo/ breaking the -STABLE build. I'll send you any diffs when >> I get this done." I seriously doubt that any maintainer would mind. > > Actually, I've often wondered what effort, if any, was given over > to pushing FreeBSD patches back from the ports tree to the original > maintainers of the code? I know I do, Zebra, GTk+/Glib, libtool, automake, autoconf are on my list for which I try to build the lastest releases ASAP and send patches back that will at least allow for flawless (albeit with warnings at times) compilations. If I don't succeed I'll nag whatever lists necessary to come to an answer. > It would seem to me that that would be a far more effective long > term win, since it will mean that: > > 1) The patches don't get "stale" if they are rolled into the > main source tree. Correct, which also means that the number of patches would decrease. > 2) You don't have to depend on a port maintainer caring about > your application of the port. True, in this case one could easily get a package from the net (which is in the ports) and just compile and install it. > 3) The code that results should maintain backward compatability > across FreeBSD releases by virtue of not having release > specific patches in it. *nods* This would be desirable because although I'm a CURRENT follower for reasons, there are tons of stations who still run 2.2.x (some machines at work). > 4) It offloads the maintenance onto the original source base, > freeing up peoples time to do things like maintaining a > backward compatability theme (if they care), doing more > ports (if they care), or otherwise allowing them to pursue > stuff that's more rewarding than getting yelled at on -chat. > > One thing that someone could contribute would be to go through the > various patches, and roll them back (if they aren't just hacks) to > the original maintainers. If someone did this, they'd be able to > get the gratitude of both communities, instead of the ignomany of > one. Either way, hacks remain dirty tricks. Surely maintainers and sourcewriters could come to a solution given some time discussing it. I know I got some dirty tricks out of the total system of GTk+. I think that in the end we'll all benefit from it, the main coders will keep FreeBSD more in mind, the current porters get an easier job, the general *BSD community will be able to compile more from the net. --- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <http://www.freebsdzine.org>; asmodai(at)wxs.nl The idea does not replace the work... Network/Security Specialist <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai>; *BSD: Powered by Knowledge & Know-how <http://www.freebsd.org>; To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990310085741.asmodai>