From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 5 01:26:24 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF6916A46E for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9F4C13C448 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:26:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 17995 invoked by uid 399); 5 Jan 2008 01:26:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 5 Jan 2008 01:26:22 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <477EDCBC.2090402@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:20 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Colin Percival References: <200801041328.m04DSp6h096405@repoman.freebsd.org> <477EB668.3090400@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <477EB668.3090400@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Pav Lucistnik , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/ports-mgmt Makefile ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_cleanup Makefile pkg-descr ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_cleanup/files Makefile pkg_cleanup.1 pkg_cleanup.c X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:26:24 -0000 Colin Percival wrote: > Pav Lucistnik wrote: >> Modified files: >> ports-mgmt Makefile >> Added files: >> ports-mgmt/pkg_cleanup Makefile pkg-descr >> ports-mgmt/pkg_cleanup/files Makefile pkg_cleanup.1 >> pkg_cleanup.c > > Is there a standard policy for when a port's source code should be included in > the ports tree instead of in a separate distfile which is fetched on demand? I actually do not know if there is a codified policy, but I have two original works in the ports tree so I'll share my thought process. The first criterion I used was, "Is it directly related to FreeBSD, and only FreeBSD?" I think anything in the ports-mgmt category is reasonably certain to qualify here. The second was (no slight intended) what is its size relative to portlint. :) That's a serious question, since it's already been in the tree for a long time. For portmaster, the first question is obviously yes. I also took into account that there might be a benefit (including security auditing) to having the code in the tree so that the history is visible to all. For the second question: portlint: wc -l 176 portlint.1 2955 portlint.pl 53 portlintgrep.pl 3184 total -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4522 May 30 2006 portlint.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 87376 Dec 15 10:36 portlint.pl -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1708 Nov 17 2003 portlintgrep.pl portmaster: wc -l 342 portmaster.8 1973 portmaster.sh.in 2315 total -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 9940 May 27 2007 portmaster.8 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 51773 Jan 4 05:39 portmaster.sh.in The other work I referred to is mail/pine-pgp-filters. The answer to the first question (IFF FreeBSD?) is no, which makes the second one moot. However it's worth pointing out that what I split out into its own port began life as some scripts that used to be in the pine4 port. I discarded them and started from scratch, but at a total of 480 lines (+350 for the docs) I actually considered putting them in the tree. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection