From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Oct 22 19:14:56 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3436FC1D5A7 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:14:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ultima1252@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yb0-x22c.google.com (mail-yb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3151ED for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:14:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ultima1252@gmail.com) Received: by mail-yb0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f97so49183233ybi.1 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:14:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Id5K6bV7l+2yBXtvFDLgJ6nn9n6qOQaFqV6owOZiuXM=; b=t3Oos1oj/2vpTxo3epelOCm5R4X1ypQAVFpb6yFtd1i4D+LJWpvOi3sgIrJKdL1Pqk 8pcOXvhGjvNcq04WtE8tXnQHGGr7nahVaigfLA6ng8cMcbRoU/+4yHv/8O6K2a6wSRD6 yAYFqbk0xZmOUCJ4eEPfZeYbP1MZgg87ROgwIi0TCjJsFlcGGXZ22cIBEYU7bdhihI8l QTnMwLj9FZ2kJui8N7xVA8SExzRF9Fp2W+LZ3ppbvLGuW6qLZwdO9OrtEGz6TLAGIjXw uD2DaKTuYLLLLRdLVGYCL6of8u8whVLrBrHRddI7GstvFi2oeyuUuQa/z1KYIkOYHpkl JxIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Id5K6bV7l+2yBXtvFDLgJ6nn9n6qOQaFqV6owOZiuXM=; b=To9gS5ZkjyNH7FvXhZ5N65x8LyIYu3KdmMoe1BmcVmJFQuNDiKYoN40DYZos+8AcvP 5uOq2dJyK/c2lS388flyKi56BuyGfRMLRFxyqQybVGT38SWgDvmWmH0DozIH2cd2UeZB lyBPWpzuosaZCKcEYv9kG1egHBlR9dgJgn6mrTWhJ3ACXzY6fE5K9Tmv8Sfl3fLXXJIZ 8Wa6o14VoNwfYzcM7PwzY0QoGgqFiZ0aITkThgQacZdTA1lP5p8g+oD14L/Mj1DH2g+K wlBi9EdH0WbSwnRcAUf8pKoJtUo6irpW8gayuNlFJIK/mZ3kggfQnUD/+OConG25xcdN v51A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcZsjpljWhoyid7FIkvZ5JFynHZtLg77e+EqW8CG2utSCxRwnN6tVvSCYi90ppCmtqAbA0CrFoQeV6/Og== X-Received: by 10.37.43.73 with SMTP id r70mr7093132ybr.86.1477163695068; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:14:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.90.68 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:14:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Ultima Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 15:14:54 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Advise requested when a repo split occurs To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:14:56 -0000 Hello, Some what recently a couple of the ports I maintain split into two, one being -server, and the other being -client. The code was more or less cloned then removed some make args/files that one would be used to enable both. Currently the code is so similar it would be possible to create a slave port and use the same patches, makefile and plist with minimal changes, however I have no idea the direction this split may go and this maybe short lived. So onto my topic for this post. Would it be better to create a new port with mostly duplicate code and remove/add the little changes required? Or as previously stated make a slave port and use the common code. I am struggling to decide on this and would appreciate opinions. Thanks Ultima