Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:47:34 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 206490] www/obhttpd: Added option URL_REWRITE to enable rewrite support Message-ID: <bug-206490-13-bxeOcXlIZd@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-206490-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-206490-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206490 --- Comment #4 from s.adaszewski@gmail.com --- Hi Nikola, Thanks for your feedback. Agreed that it's a distribution. More precisely - addition of an option which turns a port into a distribution. But I don't s= ee anything bad about it - it's fully optional and obviously turned off in bin= ary packages. If anything - it's good for FreeBSD to have a better version than= OB. OB seems to be starved in terms of developers and the turnabout of any chan= ge there is months. Actually if people reviewed and tested the feature in Free= BSD it would perhaps help OB accept the patch. Otherwise it might not make it t= here ever, even though people like it and I get emails every week asking how to apply the patch and so on. Besides, I think we need to migrate this port from using the GitHub repositories to fetching necessary sources from OpenBSD CVS and applying yo= ur patches on top of it. Like this it's easier to review any changes made on t= op of trusted OpenBSD codebase. Forgive my paranoia but the case of GitHub rep= o + its owner being also the port owner... makes me feel uneasy ;) What do you think? Best, S. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-206490-13-bxeOcXlIZd>