Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:22:19 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: split the quagga ports to remove unstable patches from quagga port Message-ID: <4863C23B.3020802@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080626155616.GI12581@atarininja.org> References: <83EB55D5-11A0-44C9-A469-A5C5BD6D972C@netconsonance.com> <20080626155616.GI12581@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wesley Shields wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: >> The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga >> 0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches >> are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right >> thing to do, as the TCP MD5 checksums are not necessary for the vast >> majority of installations, and DO NOT work with a GENERIC kernel. >> >> I'd like to request that the port be split into two ports -- one with >> a stock quagga installation, and the other with the MD5 checksum >> patches, due to the instability and constant work on said patches >> making the port unstable. (and being unavailable right now holds up >> access to a major bugfix line) > > You already have the option for TCPMD5 being on or off (off by default). > The solution in my mind is not two separate ports, but what is used now: > OPTIONS. If an option is broken why not mark it as such until it can be > addressed? If the patches become a workable (yet still experimental) > option the BROKEN line can be removed. The port can still keep using > newer versions while the patches are being developed. > I agree. Two ports are overkill for only TCPMD5 option. And it should not be a show stopper for the port update. -- Dixi. Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4863C23B.3020802>