From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Nov 20 01:27:38 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EE7A321C7 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 01:27:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (unknown [IPv6:2602:d1:b4d6:e600:4261:86ff:fef6:aa2a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B031B12 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 01:27:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id tAK1RVrJ058992 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:27:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: In-Reply-To: <564C413B.5040602@rawbw.com> References: <564C413B.5040602@rawbw.com> From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: Ports with LOCAL/xxx as a MASTER_SITE Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:27:38 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 01:27:39 -0000 On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 01:13:31 -0800 Yuri wrote > I came across a few ports like this. Most recently www/npm. It usually > turns out that some slightly modified version of sources is kept there @ > LOCAL/xxxx. > > Why not just have the patches under files/ do the modification, so that > it is public and reproducible? There are also GitHub and Bitbucket, > among other places, to keep sources. There should be no need to allow > LOCAL/xxx as a MASTER_SITE nowadays. > > I suggest to abolish this practice. Begin with adding a warning to the > port infrastructure when LOCAL/xxx is specified. > > (It makes it more difficult to suggest the patch to such port, because > outsiders should first "reverse-engineer" the patches, which should have > been there in files/ in the first place.) I'd have to disagree. It's used for other things, as well. In fact, most of my experience with it, has been that someone with a commit bit, is often hosting the source it self. My .02ยข on the matter, anyway. > > Yuri > --Chris