rebase

Could you maybe use temporary files (mktemp(1)) for fetch output instead of variables, it makes the jq lines shorter (jq '.foo' /tmp/file instead of echo $foo | jq ".foo")

Does this really have to be an extra patch? Does it break the build on other archs?

It feels like something like this should be in base, not in ports.

In D38634#879856, @fuz wrote:

The proposed commit message is now:

sysutils/rundeck3: update to 3.4.10
    
 - use options -H amd -o to daemon(8) for logging

Why was this change committed without a full exp-run?

poke @bapt

In D38523#877102, @eduardo wrote:

I understand what you say and no need to be frustrated about it.
This is a good to practice example about SED versus patches.

I cannot accept the same thing repeated over 10 file patches, I did not look at the rest of them: ~15 patches, without a better solution.

In D38429#874574, @vishwin wrote:

In D38429#874508, @mat wrote:

From what I understand, you removed sunpoet's fix because of some hypothetical future problem that may never happen.

This problem exists right now, because bytecode is not to be packaged, period. We (and many other operating system-level packagers) have been doing it wrong for years, and only as a crutch due to lack of a trigger mechanism that we now have. D34739 uses trigger support; having bytecode packaged hampers development of that, because proper operation cannot be verified.

In D38429#874574, @vishwin wrote:

Because you are running as root, which almost always owns the installed files.

From what I understand, you removed sunpoet's fix because of some hypothetical future problem that may never happen.

I have no idea what actually writes bytecode, or when it gets written, but it feels like this should be put in a place where it is picked up by all ports that will use some python bits, like directly in bsd.port.mk so all ports get it.

Two typos, and a simplification.

In D35782#812011, @felix_palmen-it.de wrote:

In D35782#812003, @mat wrote:

The way to go is to put the patches in the files directory in the port, and git add them.

Is this common agreement? I often found the opinion that local patches should be the last resort. Pulling patches from GitHub seems to be common practice (and well, if it's a dist site and the ports framework offers dist patches, this makes sense to me).

In D35782#812010, @lwhsu wrote:

In D35782#812003, @mat wrote:

Ok, this was already discussed a few times, something called GH_PATCH I think.

The way to go is to put the patches in the files directory in the port, and git add them.

I can't find GH_PATCH in my mail archive or from google search. Would you like to share what has been discussed and the rationale of this conclusion? It is nice to be recorded and will help the future us.

Ok, this was already discussed a few times, something called GH_PATCH I think.