From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Dec 13 15:06:17 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23351327F52 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:06:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:c4ea:bd49:619b:6cb3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB188B8D8 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:06:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from leaf.local (unknown [88.202.132.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C73CCCAF for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:06:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=FreeBSD.org Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk/2C73CCCAF; dkim=none; dkim-atps=neutral Subject: Re: A potential new porter seeking some clarifications To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <5c126f7f.1c69fb81.88ea9.6a7a@mx.google.com> From: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: <454f6ab1-1ced-19d5-47e8-523b14e2575c@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:06:13 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5c126f7f.1c69fb81.88ea9.6a7a@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:06:17 -0000 On 13/12/2018 14:41, Arthur Pirika wrote: > 1. If I understand correctly, the version of the ports tree as fetched by portsnap isn’t the best for working on the tree. I should instead make another copy of the tree as an svn checkout? Distfiles, however, still go to /usr/ports/distfiles If you're going to be submitting patches or creating Phabricator reviews, then it is definitely recommended that you checkout the ports out of either SVN or Git -- whichever you prefer -- and generate your diffs against the head of the development tree (eg. by 'svn diff'). Although there is a copy of the ports tree available via GitHub, don't try using GitHub to create pull requests for the ports. At worst, no one will notice and at best you'll just be asted to re-submit your diff as a PR or a Phab. review. Using one common distfiles location is usually what you'ld want to do in order to save on repeated downloads of the same distfiles. > 2. Is it absolutely necessary to use poudriere before submitting a port? I’m still getting to grips with how it works, and if I need to get comfortable with it first, I’ll do so. It's absolutely necessary to test your work, and the generally accepted way to do that involves using poudriere to do clean-room builds. Other testing methodologies are possible, but generally less effective and less convenient. Don't be frightened of poudriere: it's much easier and nicer to use than many people seem to think. So long as you have sufficient disk space and you aren't trying to rebuild the entire ports tree, it can work well on a very ordinary desktop machine. Cheers, Matthew