Re: Adding functionality to a port

On 16/11/21 11:34, Rob LA LAU wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 15/11/2021 10:21, Guido Falsi wrote:
>> You look too worried by the "functionality added" part.
> 
> Yes, I am worried. Of course I am.

Now I feel compelled to reply to all this rant of yours because you are 
replying to me, but I really have little more to say about this.

While the first reply you got was on the line of "anything goes" I 
argued there are some rules, and explained that it's difficult to create 
better rules. That they can be counter productive. The argument about 
requiring upstream patches has its problems, but I will not delve into it.

Please note that if a maintainer diverges significantly from upstream, 
committers will intervene, if committers diverge significantly, they 
will be addressed and the issue discussed. things like this have 
happened in the past. I personally have refused patches diverging from 
upstream in the past.

The FreeBSD ports collection is a volunteer effort at porting software, 
we do try to make it behave like upstream, but I don't think there is 
any way to warrant that. everything is open and there for you to review. 
there is no hidden patching.

Nothing forces you to use packages or ports. You can compile upstream 
software yourself. You can't expect many warranties from free work of 
others.

Our rules are available for all to see in the porter's handbook and the 
committer's handbook.

I am unable to invent better rules about this than what we already have 
and are doing. If you think you can write them and propose them. 
Expecting us to create a set of rules for your real servers with real 
data and do that for free is not very reasonable.

I think this thread has exhausted its usefulness.

NOTE I'm writing this from my @FreeBSD.org address so it does not bounce 
from the mailing list, but this is all my personal opinion.

-- 
Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>