Introducing new ports - best practises

[Matthew Seaman]

On 06/08/2012 08:10, Matthias Petermann wrote:

> at the moment I am working on porting the Tryton business solution
> and later GNU Health is planned.
> 
> Tryton is made up of small modules (Python Eggs), each of them
> providing data models and business logic for a particular business
> domain - e.g. product management, invoicing, crm, sales... . The modules
> depend on each other in some ways.
> 
> What is the proposed way to get this modules into the Ports
> Collection? Should I submit a PR for each single module or it is
> reasonable to create one PR for a bunch of new ports of the same
> category when they belong logically together?

First of all, this is prime material for the freebsd-ports at freebsd.org
list, where you'll get an audience of most of the people that work on
such things in FreeBSD.

I'd also like to point you at #bsdports on the EFNet IRC network: if you
want your work to be reviewed before you submit it, or are just looking
for some quick answers to any questions you may have, that's a good
place to ask.

To answer the question: historically the rule of thumb has been one PR
for each new port, and note in the body of the PR any dependencies on
other PRs.  Putting several ports into one PR is not a complete no-no,
but usually you'ld need some special justification.  Something like a
pair od ports with a master-slave relationship perhaps.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk               Kent, CT11 9PW

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20120806/fb3fac32/signature.pgp