Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:43:08 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Freebsd-mono <freebsd-mono@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Maintaining mono/.net Message-ID: <20160628094307.bepxy46dp5igizeh@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CABx9NuSwbf2jwyqcGNGeyWjJ4pbVFmCiGO=i172UDFy2=yGPOw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABx9NuSwbf2jwyqcGNGeyWjJ4pbVFmCiGO=i172UDFy2=yGPOw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0700, Russell Haley wrote: > Hello Ports Team, > > A couple of us on the freebsd-mono@ mailing list are having a > discussion on how best to maintain the mono ports/.net ports. One of > the things that has come up is maintaining the patches for "all this > stuff". The current paradigm in FreeBSD as I understand it is to use > the files directory and apply the patches to the port via svn/ports > tree. However, with the ubiquity of GitHub in opensource, it now seems > to be feesable to simply create a Github accound to maintain a bunch > of forked repositories (which is essentially a patched git > repository!). This makes it easier to create and apply patches and > gives us the natural path to push things back upstream. In the end, we > would just pull from the FreeBSD specific repository, which is no > different than, say, pulling from the mono project directly. > > This email is a request for response from anyone on the ports team (or > FreeBSD general) to give some input as to the acceptability of this > solution, as well as any "gotchas" we haven't thought of yet. Thanks > in advance! > There are absolutely nothing against this. Actually some ports were already doing that before the github era :D The only difficulty the history told us is : when active people get less active for various reasons you need to make sure enough people continues to get access to the said repo. Tracking upstream updates because more complicated for people not in the team (we already saw in the past ports stucked for more than 5/6 years actions being taken (maintainer of the forked becoming mostly MIA) It also depends how many patches you end up with, I haven't checked the mono/.net ports but if that is just a bunch of small patches then the overhead is not worth the pain, if there are lots of patches then sure maintaining your repo is simpler. Depending on how active you (the team) are and how close to the upstream you are one can also see those repositories as "temporary" until all the amount of patches are upstreamed and when done the ports can switch back to the official distfiles (this is always a goal for ports upstreaming all our patches so we can remain as close as possible from the vanilla sources) That said I do applause the effort. As a conclusion do what ever you think is the easiest mechanism for you as long as things like monodevelop and friends can be pushed in a working state again. Best regards, Bapt [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXckS3AAoJEGOJi9zxtz5aeW0P/RUw/RMiHuzD7zqCUKi0hunG 8aIxGweJcqDtR30OFvi9WVQyck0t9MXEfa008NIo4yXx8xawdyPmy8mO1G/Xm9aK bSIcIt9scnPp/K0u8sEC1/e20NqUep6+THRxOGyoUZdI88FXnWF3oWAvXV17ENZA lXdhcFDtoZRe8Zp6gCgxMnwoxhAZ5aiZMNRMf8jHyPAWBomnguHaxF1w4kG5vMIN 4+FHy0OmCmDrWPVnnB/kZkikqHanRwLCnrFvfAjGeZGsnNaI9HTXjuK7gDgPAZ+7 c7eWGRGF/2nAGsiEXvyuT8zj3zzng2lSAbrcEJLNtRX9hA+vXKQTnOfBjVWIVm3D cjiKYSw22PqPYQk6eegtVu9YRFjhtqgqFMakHju5IHN/mfR63g62upJRIast8B4W cXTg8ddYejUBdOPqwk/ySSNTq9WOYZ4kniw3JnmlO0BrK7p5R7nRy5lexJ3oI/lW MOpkZqKPLhusV2eM8fE5WXbjxa1nCYJ35WdkBjTFhcVs3unRJ12A10AJVHXo1CWL 5Jsp6fy+mSe0KCIbQADFbnAXz7ZBy7zzZqXF4fboRkin3XdMg8radPdPQ8F8e6Ty Ty91R59NqZ0dG1rFXHFEvEFW3VBlAUn6u9acbRY+H/uv7SKulx6zQZ4zTbV64Uam 4KtWFVBwudFH6eVnWXqD =FNbm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160628094307.bepxy46dp5igizeh>