[Bug 250461] New port: databases/proxysql ProxySQL is a high performance proxy for MySQL and forks

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250461

daniel.engberg.lists at pyret.net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |daniel.engberg.lists at pyret.
                   |                            |net

--- Comment #1 from daniel.engberg.lists at pyret.net ---
Python 2.x is going to be removed in less than 2 months (at the end of the
year) so this probably isn't going get committed.

As for using vendor provided libs, this is more or less discouraged
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#bundled-libs
and for a good reason. Looking at vendor repo there's a lot of _very_ old libs
with known vulns. https://github.com/sysown/proxysql/tree/v2.0.15/deps

Mixing and matching different build frameworks is also less than ideal and can
(probably will) lead to interesting failures.

Makefile: L6+L2+29 - Check section 5.4.3
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#makefile-distfiles
Makefile: L7 - Remove, PORTREVISION starts at 0 and doesn't need to be set.
Makefile: L14 -  Use tab instead of space (style, consistency)
Makefile: L22 - Remove +
Makefile: L24 - For the sake of readability use alphabetical order
Makefile: L36-37 - No, read  section 6.27
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.html#users-and-groups
Makefile: L58-59 - Looking at L61-L62 just set them directly or just
${PORTNAME} if you insist on using a variable?
Makefile: L84 is definitely a no go, that needs to be fixed within the port.

Unless it greatly improves readability there's no need to define a variable and
only use it once.

portlint will probably find a few issues too
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.html#testing-portlint
A poudriere run will also be very helpful.

I'm by far no expert but the mentioned issues above looks incorrect to me at
first glance.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.