Would you mind rebasing this one for me? It doesn't apply cleanly after I pushed your D35605. Thanks!

Tested on a DL380 and seems to work.

I've tested this on a DL380 and can confirm it works.

I'm fine with this revision. Thank you!

This looks good. I would still like to see the comment "for security" to be expanded with some information about how it actually improves security. Something along the lines of "this closes a side channel permitting an attacker to infer the source port from the rate limited ICMP responses, as in CVE-2020-25705."

I don't mind this change either way but I also wonder what kind of workflows need Git to report .orig/.rej.

I'm not sure if all those hostmaster@ aliases work but otherwise this diff looks good to me. Many thanks for doing this work!

Looks good to me. :)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (maintainer)

This also needs maintainer approval. If the maintainer approves, it's approved by: philip (mentor) too.

No need. If you do the git cherry-pick as described in the handbook, you'll get the same commit on the quarterly branch as on main -- including the Approved by: line. :)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Thanks for checking that. I always forget when pkg is smart enough about empty directories.
This looks good to me! Feel free to commit.

Just spotted the mis-ordered textproc/Makefile :)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Looks good to me!

Looks good to me. Assuming you've build-tested this. :)

I don't think "Fixes" is appropriate here. The commit didn't actually break this port.

What @0mp said regarding ${INSTALL_DATA} instead of ${CP}.

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Looks good to me!

Note that the ports Git repository requires (or at least very strongly recommends) Subject lines formatted as "topic: description". I would recommend a commit message like:

Looks good to me. Thanks!