Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 18:37:35 UTC
Hi! > > > It is also not correct to "commandeer" a port to force users on design > > > choices in conflict with the upstream project. > > Is there a section in the ports maintainers guide or somewhere > > else that mandates this ? > Sorry, my fault I did not make me clear maybe, this is all my own opinion. > So is what follows. > > Anyway I don't see it as a good beahviour to take a port of some upstream > software and move it in a contrasting direction than the upstream. I agree. The problem is that this is very difficult to codify into some policy. [...] > The name "ports" implies it is not the place for original development. I > also agree we often have a disconnection on how things are named and what > they actually are or behave, so I would not have any strong reply if you > were to state the the name cannot be held as a reason for policy. So some sort of rule might be: If the functionality varies from the upstream-project in a major way, please use a derived or different name for the port. -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 Now what ?