[PATCH] net/ntopng: Unbreak

[bofh]

Summary

• Unbreak
• Change EXTRACT_SUFX to USES

Test Plan

http://pdr.s.ubze.ro/bulk/latest-per-pkg/ntopng/1.2.1_1/

Due to failure of devel/icu can't provide log of 9.3-RELEASE in i386.

[marino]

The actual patch is fine.
However, we also need to review the commit message.

Is the "summary" your intended commit message?
Personally I always put my commit messages in this format:

line 1: One line synopsis of commit, usually starting with <category>/<portname>:
line 2: blank
line 3 ...: meaningful commit message ("why" is more important than "what", but it's okay to list what changed -- just add the reasons if it's not obvious)
next line: blank
link lines: PR/ submittted by / approved by/ reviewed by block

[bofh]

Hi,

It will be something like the following:
Line1 : Title
Line2 : Blank
Line3-required : Summary
Next : Blank
Linked Links : PR/Submitted by/Reviewed by etc

[marino]

Okay, great!

For this review, just prewrite the message and paste it as a comment to this review.
For future reviews, paste the intended commit message as the summary.

Then as a reviewer, I or bapt will be approving both the commit and the message.

Ideally, you'd paste the actual message. However, my last mentee found the review block to be a problem and only provided up to the review block (so a couple of minor issues there slipped though).

I actually pre-write all my messages and commit with "svn commit -F <filename>". Not only does that give an additional chance to edit the message (which I often use) but that might help populate the summary block here.

However, you don't have to prewrite the message. I find it very helpful but it's your choice how you want to work.

[bofh]

net/ntopng: Unbreak

- Unbreak
- Change EXTRACT_SUFX to USES


PR:     196189
Differential Revision:  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1364
Submitted by:   [e-mail]
Reviewed by:    marino
Approved by:    marino
Obtained from:
MFC after:
MFH:
Relnotes:
Security:
Sponsored by:

[marino]

okay, fortunately this effort was not wasted! (on the email, the PR number is expanded to an URL, but here on the site it looks correct).

1. empty fields like these: Obtained from:, MFC after:, MFH:, Relnotes:, Security:, Sponsored by:

should be omitted

2. if the reviewer and approver are the same person, you only need the "approved" line (the review is assumed)

3. The form would be "approved by: marino (mentor)". You always list the hat of the approver in parentheses

4. Since either bapt or I may approve it, you can just list "approved by: xxx (mentor)" and change "xxx" after approval

I'll approve the commit contingent on you making those changes to the commit message!