Re: git: 1f27d54496be - main - net/amneziawg-kmod, net/amneziawg-kmod: new ports

From: Kyle Evans <kevans_at_FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:05:45 UTC
On 7/26/25 09:21, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> The branch main has been updated by eugen:
> 
> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=1f27d54496bed7a922c70a31d07f03223e314429
> 
> commit 1f27d54496bed7a922c70a31d07f03223e314429
> Author:     Eugene Grosbein <eugen@FreeBSD.org>
> AuthorDate: 2025-07-26 14:15:14 +0000
> Commit:     Eugene Grosbein <eugen@FreeBSD.org>
> CommitDate: 2025-07-26 14:20:45 +0000
> 
>      net/amneziawg-kmod, net/amneziawg-kmod: new ports
>      
>      AmneziaWG is a contemporary version of the popular VPN protocol,
>      WireGuard. It offers protection against detection
>      by Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) systems. At the same time,
>      it retains the simplified architecture and high performance
>      of the original.
>      
>      Differential Revision:  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D51265
> ---
>   net/Makefile                                       |   2 +
>   net/amneziawg-kmod/Makefile                        |  23 +++
>   net/amneziawg-kmod/distinfo                        |   3 +
>   net/amneziawg-kmod/files/patch-Makefile            |   9 +
>   net/amneziawg-kmod/files/patch-if__wg.c            | 173 +++++++++++++++++++
>   net/amneziawg-kmod/pkg-descr                       |  12 ++
>   net/amneziawg-tools/Makefile                       |  36 ++++
>   net/amneziawg-tools/distinfo                       |   3 +
>   net/amneziawg-tools/files/amneziawg.in             |  74 ++++++++
>   net/amneziawg-tools/files/patch-config.c           |  11 ++
>   net/amneziawg-tools/files/patch-ipc-freebsd.h      |  11 ++
>   .../files/patch-wg-quick_freebsd.bash              | 192 +++++++++++++++++++++
>   net/amneziawg-tools/pkg-descr                      |   2 +
>   net/amneziawg-tools/pkg-plist                      |   7 +
>   14 files changed, 558 insertions(+)
 >

Hi,

Please back this out.  There's still ongoing debate in the review and we 
already have two committers on this that are quite capable of committing 
it on their own when it's ready, but this was premature.  Snatching a 
port out of an active review is kind of poor form, a heads-up would have 
been appreciated.

Thanks,

Kyle Evans