ports/54202: [MAINTAINER PATCH] unify port net/openldap20 with
ck at cksoft.de
Thu Jul 10 03:58:41 PDT 2003
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> thanks for your reply.
> Christian Kratzer wrote:
> > Hi,
> > a couple of comments ...
> > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> >>- unify port net/openldap20 with net/openldap22 (easier to maintain)
> > you seem to be very active with the openldap ports currently and I would
> > suggest that you take over the openldap21 port from me for consistency
> > purposes. Feel free to update yourself as the maintainer if you like.
> If you trust me to maintain the port and really want to give up maintainership,
> I'll be honored to take it. I'll try to keep the ports structurally similar,
> to easy maintainership and migration. Thats what PR ports/54202 is about.
yes please feel free. I think it is best to have one active maintainer
for all the openldap ports. I will of course still send input if I
have something to say. There is no need for me to be maintainer for that.
> > it happened when my openldap21 port was committed in February this year.
> > I had submitted the port with packagename openldap and version 2.1.x but
> > there was some discussion with the committers that policy was changing and
> > the new scheme was now preferred.
> Ah.. I didn't know that. Can you please point me to some documentation on why
> this policy was changed and what the advantages are? Perhaps I should change
> net/openldap22 then, to keep things consistent.
I will forward you the mails I had with the committers back in February.
> > Of course I would prefer changing back but this will break dependent ports
> > once again. If we change back I would very much like this to stay and not
> > be changed back again. Perhaps this should be documented in the Makefiles.
> Hmmm.... I thought it was just an oversight. I'll post an extra message to
> ports@ to discuss this.
> For sure. But a change in the portname does not imply an source code changes
> in the dependend ports, no dependency would break. And I think not adhering
> to standards causes for more confusion in the long run.
yes but dependencies will break if the portname changes. With the deep
dependency chains todays software tends to have one will often just want
to rebuild one component out of many. It's ugly if you have to force
a package add and stuff like that.
CK Software GmbH
Christian Kratzer, Schwarzwaldstr. 31, 71131 Jettingen
Email: ck at cksoft.de
Phone: +49 7452 889-135 Open Software Solutions, Network Security
Fax: +49 7452 889-136 FreeBSD spoken here!
More information about the freebsd-ports