Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 06:17:28 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 271401] [PATCH] net/jwhois: Update to 4.0.73, take maintainership Message-ID: <bug-271401-7788-CKHQk3gLUj@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-271401-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-271401-7788@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=3D271401 --- Comment #4 from Terry Kennedy <terry-freebsd@glaver.org> --- (In reply to Koichiro Iwao from comment #3) The patch looks good, with the exception of a few minor things described be= low. I agree that it is much better to fetch the patches from the Fedora reposit= ory rather than having a monolithic patchfile as part of the port. The SUB_LIST doesn't seem to be correct - we end up with "/usr/local/lynx" instead of the expected "/usr/local/bin/lynx". Also, do you think we should list lynx as a dependency (or at least an OPTION)? Is there any way to fetch the jwhois.conf file from Fedora instead of inclu= ding it in the port's files subdirectory? That file is one of the major fixes and fetching it from Fedora should make it easier to track future changes. I understand what you're saying about PORTREVISION=3D, but we should have s= ome way of noting the Fedora jwhois release the port is based on. If we're goin= g to bundle jwhois.conf.in in the files subdirectory, perhaps edit it to indicate the Fedora jwhois RPM version it was derived from? Thanks for your work to improve my submission. --=20 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-271401-7788-CKHQk3gLUj>