Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:42:20 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 212420] [PATCH] net/foreman-proxy: update to 1.12.2 Message-ID: <bug-212420-21402-dxZcpJHzpv@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-212420-21402@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-212420-21402@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212420 --- Comment #13 from Karli Sjöberg <Karli.Sjoberg@slu.se> --- (In reply to Steve Wills from comment #8) I assume because of the passivity in this report that the change proposed is "scary" and may break other things, so I come here with a different approach. Instead of holding rack back, potentially causing issues for other ports, I´ve created new ports for the dependencies needed by foreman-proxy. This way, we change foreman-proxy to suite it´s needs and nothing else. I´ve called them: www/rubygem-sinatra2 www/rubygem-rack-protection2 devel/rubygem-mustermann1 I changed 'net/foreman-proxy' to use 'www/rubygem-sinatra2', plus change the dependency to rack 2.0 in foreman-proxy´s gemspec. The port build, installs and runs without issue on three different proxies, puppet- and ca, tftp and dhcp so far. I tar'ed my changes into the 'foreman-proxy.tar.gz' file attached to the PR. Is this an acceptable solution to this problem? Best Regards Karli Sjöberg -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-212420-21402-dxZcpJHzpv>