From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 4 21:59:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A5F106566C for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:59:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from antoine@nagafix.co.uk) Received: from mail.nagafix.co.uk (mamba.nagafix.co.uk [194.145.196.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F001A8FC08 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: antoine@nagafix.co.uk) by mail.nagafix.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C25C9B0C; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:59:32 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4D4C76C1.7030706@nagafix.co.uk> Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 04:59:29 +0700 From: Antoine Martin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4D4B0CDB.9000404@nagafix.co.uk> <4D4B400A.2090701@FreeBSD.org> <4D4BA777.2030701@nagafix.co.uk> <20110204084939.GF34314@home.opsec.eu> <20110204093807.GA2803@straylight.ringlet.net> <4D4C5A05.2000909@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D4C5A05.2000909@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Kurt Jaeger Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: xpra-0.0.7.16p4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:59:35 -0000 Hi Doug, The last proper file release from upstream was 0.0.6 in November 2009. Since then, I've fixed a number of things (from typos to build fixes for some platforms), supported new platforms (mac osx, I originally added win32 support but the author then re-wrote that), etc Any help in getting the patches merged would be much appreciated, I haven't had much luck so far. I used to send piecemeal patches with full description to the author, but since almost none of them got merged, recently I've started posting large all-in-one diffs instead. (they're not even all from me these patches, but I end up maintaining them) Also, another tool I maintain won't work without the patches I added, so if you ship the upstream version then I'll have to fork it to make it work with my tool (I really really would rather not). Cheers Antoine On 02/05/2011 02:56 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > I'm confused. Why are we not using the sources from the "regular" > location, and patching to make them work for us? And has anyone > contacted the upstream about the changes and why they are necessary? > This whole thing seems very confusing to me (but that's not saying > much). :) > > Doug > > >