Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

Explain ports signature policy for older ports
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by salvadore on Sun, Feb 9, 2:57 PM.

Details

Reviewers
mat
Group Reviewers
docs
Summary

Explain ports signature policy for older ports

Diff Detail

Repository
rD FreeBSD doc repository
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 29252
Build 27170: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

salvadore created this revision.Sun, Feb 9, 2:57 PM
crees added a subscriber: crees.Sun, Feb 9, 4:10 PM

While I agree with the sentiment, is this definitely policy?

mat added a comment.Wed, Feb 12, 2:01 PM

The "Created by" lines are the new way of doing things, all the Makefiles were converted a really long while back.

This paragraph should be axed instead of adding something unrelated to it.

Also, those lines are are not documented on purpose, you don't have to touch them.

I proposed this patch because I feel there is some confusion on the topic. This feeling comes from my own experience when I was a new contributor.

In particular, when I started working on ports about 18 months ago, I tried to sign new ports with "Created by:" lines: once it was rejected, once it was accepted. Thus, I thought that those lines were cases of "additional information [that] has been declared obsolete, and is being phased out" and that the time it was accepted it was by mistake. Later, when submitting patches to ports, since I thought that "Created by:" lines were obsolete I removed them: once the removal was accepted, once it was rejected. I then changed my interpretation thinking that old "Created by:" lines should be kept, but no new such lines should be created (and I tried to correct the removal of the line that was accepted, but without success: the maintainer of the port was against restoring it).

For these reasons, I feel there is some confusion on the topic and that it should be solved. Moreover, we risk to frustrate new contributors if we refuse new ports signatures without a consistent rule.
Can we do something about it? Maybe "axing" the paragraph as suggested is the solution? Should I submit a patch to remove it then? (I am not a native English speaker: I think that by "axed" you mean "removed": please correct me if I am wrong).

Thanks.

crees added a comment.EditedThu, Feb 13, 9:11 PM

Mat does indeed mean that the paragraph should be removed, and I'm inclined to agree- we don't have any

# Ports collection Makefile for xxxx

in our tree any more, which is why the paragraph existed in the first place. Without this, I guess there isn't really an issue around it.

I think it might be better to have it in the more detailed part, which submitters should be reading anyway-- patch incoming.

@crees Feel free to commandeer the review if you need it to submit the right patch in the most natural way: I would not take offense :)