LGTM, keep up the good work!

D37929 will probably not be merged, just use MASTER_SITES instead but it's fine as is for now.

Do we still need to use the bundled version of HTTPLIB? https://github.com/equeim/tremotesf2/tree/2.6.2/src/3rdparty matches what we already have in ports, https://www.freshports.org/www/cpp-httplib/
Can we also use upstream's release archives? https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#makefile-master_sites-github

The only difference I can see are some Makefile's variables that are placed differently (and perhaps somewhat a bit odd like EXTRACT_AFTER_ARGS and USE_GITHUB) and that MRUBY is enabled by default?
Plist breaks with MRUBY disabled with this patch

In D44791#1025107, @uzsolt wrote:

In D44791#1023899, @uzsolt wrote:

In D44791#1023359, @diizzy wrote:

Where do the patches originate and are they upstreamed?

Here it is: https://github.com/pgbackrest/pgbackrest/commit/7b95fd3bd29346e7325aa161bfee45efd71e22eb
The port maintainer is the author of patch.

How should handle it in the port?

Use of GH_TAGNAME would be better than patches? Or the Example 18. in Porter's Handbook?

Where do the patches originate and are they upstreamed?

Approved

Approved

On my box security/p5-openxpki-i18n fails which is a dependency of security/p5-openxpki (which also depends on this port), until that port is fixed so we can build the other one it's "on hold" status

make test in ports tree (without Poudriere) on 14.0

Any reason why we can't depend on gsed so we can use the latest version? https://www.freshports.org/textproc/gsed/

https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/committers-guide/#_include_appropriate_metadata_in_a_footer
Regarding Reviewed vs Approved

For consistency with other USES toggles I think build fits better however I think the cmake configuration bits should be broken out from build into a separate toggle or combined into another toggle.