Solved Maintainer duties

[zirias@]

Don't fall for FUD by frustrated guys. In my experience, patches to the ports tree are very welcome. I submitted my first port when I had very little experience with ports, and still, it was accepted (and improved). The documentation (porters' handbook) is perfect. The tools vary ... portlint is useful and should never be skipped, but the messages it produces when something is wrong can be confusing, especially if you don't have much experience yet. poudriere testport is very useful.

 

[zirias@]

A .shar is accepted. It's probably not preferred any more, but it definitely is accepted. Your port probably had other problems, and I guess you got comments in the PR you submitted.

You're just spreading FUD here, actively harming the project, obviously out of personal frustration.

 

[shkhln]

So again, the "perfect" documentation says they will accept a shar file

Only for new ports, as the name of the section ("Submitting the New Port") clearly implies. Submitting changes to an existing port in patch format is basic common sense.

And ${REINPLACE_CMD} which is in the handbook, and I've seen used in other Makefiles, is not allowed, I was told.

I don't buy it. Citation needed.

 

[zirias@]

Only for new ports, as the name of the section ("Submitting the New Port") clearly implies. Submitting changes to an existing port in a patch format is basic common sense.

If that's what happened .. oh my, how would someone ever get that idea...

I don't buy it.

Neither do I. I use REINPLACE_CMD in several of my ports, of course. It can be mis-used. Larger changes are better done with local patches, for example. I got that remark once, but could explain why REINPLACE_CMD was still better in that specific case. I also got criticism on my submissions that was very valid, and of course, acted upon it by improving my submission. This looks to me like a case of someone taking any criticism as a personal offense, not realizing that some Q/A must happen and that this is a good thing for everyone. Giving up is an option (not a good one), but then blaming the commiters is just anti-social. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Otherwise, please stay silent.

For anyone else reading this: My experience with FreeBSD ports is that submissions are very welcome, and it's pretty easy to become a maintainer. If you feel you want to do this, please, do so, everyone will benefit.

 

[zirias@]

From the email regarding REINPLACE_CMD, it states

Please use dos2unix rather than a homegrown solution

So REINPLACE_CMD is a homegrown solution?

This implies you tried to use REINPLACE_CMD to convert line endings to Unix format. Then, yes, it is a homegrown solution that should be avoided, for that specific usecase, dos2unix exists.

If you can't cope with criticism and work in a team, you should not attempt to maintain a port.

 

[JohnnySorocil]

Around two years ago I created a few ports and they made it to ports tree (they were committed by someone else).
I don't have time nor interest (broke my hardware which used that ports a 1.5 year ago) to maintain it. What should I do? Is there some procedure to follow? I have logged to bugs.freebsd.org but don't know what to do next
Now I see in git logs (my /usr/ports/ is git repo) that manu@ took some ports, some ports are assigned to ports@ but I am wondering is there proper procedure for that kind of things?

I still have interest in FreeBSD and someday I'll create a few more ports (https://github.com/thefallenidealist/ports_FreeBSD)

 

[SirDice]

but I am wondering is there proper procedure for that kind of things?

Drop an email to to the ports@ mailing list asking to be removed as the maintainer of those ports. If nobody else picks it up the maintainer will be set to ports@freebsd.org (it will become an unmaintained port). But it sounds like this has already happened for your ports.