When the date is just a placeholder, you should use, say, 0.date or 0.0.date so that when they end up releasing 1.0 you don't have to bump PORTEPOCH.

Can't you not patch that file, and do some more magic in the REINPLACE_CMD lines ?
It feels strange to patch here to put on placeholders that you will then replace.

something like:

@${REINPLACE_CMD} -e 's|{"CFLAGS", ".*"|{"CFLAGS", "${CFLAGS}"|' \
      -e 's|{"LDFLAGS", ".*"|{"LDFLAGS", "${LDFLAGS}"|' ${WRKSRC}/rebar.config.script.in

or something.

No.

We do not set $freeBSD$ in the plist

Something is wrong with the default template in ports-mgmt/porttools. Thanks for pointing out.

I've been wondering, is there a reason this is not named "xml" like it's GH_PROJECT leads to think it's called ?

Shouldn't this be in the textproc category, where all the xml stuff are ?

Does this do anything ? I mean, if you still have to strip the only two .so installed by the port, it feels it's not doing anything.

This could, maybe, be folded into one line, doing:

${STRIP_CMD} ${STAGEDIR}${PREFIX}/lib/erlang/lib/${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}/priv/lib/*.so

There are so many things wrong with porttools :-)

Ok, just asking :-)

Just because someone was doing stupid things does not give you license to :-)

If you look at https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-categories.html you'll see that it clearly states not to use devel if they can go elsewhere, in this case, it should go in textproc.