Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:08:08 -0600 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/ports-mgmt Makefile ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_cleanup Makefile pkg-descr ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_cleanup/files Makefile pkg_cleanup.1 pkg_cleanup.c Message-ID: <20080105020807.GA19156@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <477EDCBC.2090402@FreeBSD.org> References: <200801041328.m04DSp6h096405@repoman.freebsd.org> <477EB668.3090400@freebsd.org> <477EDCBC.2090402@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:26:20PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Colin Percival wrote: > > Is there a standard policy for when a port's source code should be included in > > the ports tree instead of in a separate distfile which is fetched on demand? > > I actually do not know if there is a codified policy, but I have two > original works in the ports tree so I'll share my thought process. > > The first criterion I used was, "Is it directly related to FreeBSD, > and only FreeBSD?" There's never been a discussion of a policy IIRC. I suppose that if something is of significant size but is FreeBSD-only, it might be a candidate for our (underused) projects/ repo. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080105020807.GA19156>