Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports

[Christian Weisgerber]

Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com> wrote:

> 2. (intermediate) Let's change the way we think about patchfiles.
> Instead of seeing them as a permanent part of the port, perhaps we
> should instead be thinking about each one as a temporary measure until
> we can get the original software's authors to incorporate them upstream.

I'm under the impression that this is exactly the way we already
operate.

Even in cases where the upstream maintainers eagerly gobble up our
patches, there usual is still a one release gap, i.e. our port
patches for version N will only be in release N+1.  Then there are
unmaintained pieces of software; maintainers that refuse patches
because they say that's FreeBSD's breakage and they don't care; it
is easier to slap a quick bandaid on a specific problem than to
come up with a truly portable solution; some differences are just
policy, such as hier(7) differences; and the list probably goes on.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de