On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:12:34 -0700, "Steve Franks" wrote:
> That's alot of good info. It should go in the porter's handbook,
> maybe...


Hi Steve,

Probably not. What I wrote is specific to the GNU build system. We
have many ports that use configure scripts and makefiles generated from
various versions of the GNU build tools, but ports are ``different''.
We are not the _maintainers_ of the main source code of all the ported
applications. We just have to make sure they build on FreeBSD, and
that's pretty much all of it.

For example, if the source tree of a port includes a `configure.in' that
is broken on FreeBSD and Cygwin, we don't really have to ``fix'' both of
these. If it builds correctly on FreeBSD, we are done. This may not be
enough for Cygwin users, but we are not out to fix everyone's code to
build on everybody else's system. That would be an insane amount of
work for a very doubtful amount of gain

> So, if I'm looking to make a port, which one of those people should I
> be acting as? Maintainer? That's FreeBSD-port-terminology you are
> using, correct?


FreeBSD Porters are a separate category. They usually fall in the
category of `builder' I mentioned in the original post, but they have to
provide the tools for `packagers' too, in the form of Makefiles, scripts
and packaging lists that allow others to configure, build and package
the ``vendor'' code for some FreeBSD version.

When I mentioned `maintainer', `builder' and `packager' roles in the
original post I didn't mean *FreeBSD-maintainer* but the actual person
or team that maintains the upstream source of a program.

HTH,
Giorgos

_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis...reebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"