Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 20:54:36 +0300 (MSK) From: "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=" (Andrey A. Chernov) <ache@nagual.ru> To: jfieber@indiana.edu (John Fieber) Cc: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/apache/patches patch-ag patch-ac Message-ID: <199611051754.UAA00673@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961105081446.20622L-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> from "John Fieber" at "Nov 5, 96 09:17:57 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, [KOI8-R] ______ ______ wrote: > > > > These types of changes aren't "porting" patches and as such I don't > > > think they should be part of the ports structure. Like I said, if > > > you're interested in Apache development join the Apache development list. > > > > Porting process includes local enhancements too. > > Hmmm. I think this is a slightly dangerous position to take. It > opens th ports collection to a great deal of abuse and is > problematic both for people maintaining a port and for users. When ports collection really becomes great deal of abuse, we can speak about it, but not before. Your approximation of ports collection way may be wrong and we can talk about it only when it really happens. > Even if the patches have been submitted to the original > developers, there is no saying whether they will implement the > "feature" according to your plan if at all. If they don't > implement it, how long do you anticipate supporting your new > feature? If they implement it differently, will you continue > supporting your implementation? If they don't implement it, I support this feature as long as I can. If they implement it differently, I back out my change, I need functionality, not particular interface. > The porting guidelines (see handbook) specify that *mainstream* > sources should be used. This is, at least in part, to avoid > complicating the users' life experimental designs that are > subject to change. If alpha or beta sources are considered bad, > how about features that have not even made it that far? Features > whose design and implementation have not yet been considered by > the developers? So, don't use that features and you'll stay compatible. I even don't understand how you can use them without direct looking into source code - they absent in documentation. If you smart enough to understand source code, you know, what you do. > These patches may, in fact, represent a well designed and > implemented feature, but that is beside the point. You have > stepped over the line between FreeBSD porter and Apache > developer. My opinion is that the only patches that have a > rightful home in the ports collection are those directly relating > to making the software work on *FreeBSD*. Yes, I am between FreeBSD porter and Apache developer. I already contact about that problem with Apache group and someone from it say OK for any patches in FreeBSD port, but httpd daemon must not identify itself as simple 'Apache...', its version line must indicate nonstandard patches applied, now it says 'Apache... charset,dir/ache' It seems that you try to become even more restrictive than Apache group, but I not see any reason to count your opinion. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nagual.ru> http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611051754.UAA00673>