If it doesn't represent policy then change the name of the section otherwise it just seems to read as "rules for thee and not for me". This implication also is reinforced by the behavior of developers and comments in this thread.
I did slightly misspeak about adoption of OpenBSD though which I admit to, but you also didn't read the document. And I quote: "The goal is to get all ported applications to support OpenBSD. To achieve this goal, feed patches to support running on OpenBSD back to the application maintainer. (If you are not the port maintainer, check with them first. There may be a reason why they have deliberately not done this)." That may not be adoption of the OS but support for it in applications. "Deliberately not done this" should not include they just don't want to, or feel like not following what is supposedly a policy. ________________________________ From: Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:40 AM To: max porter <mporter...@outlook.com> Cc: Landry Breuil <lan...@openbsd.org>; ports@openbsd.org <ports@openbsd.org> Subject: Re: Patch and policy inquiry On 2020/12/11 12:34, max porter wrote: > Thanks for the info and your comment is fair. > > However I would argue the maintainer started it with the tone of his > comment, given he may not have known about the noted policy which one > could say was source of truth and the thing "telling him what to do". > > I cannot see that attitude helping to foster adoption of OpenBSD as > developers may not use OpenBSD, and would be unaware of changes needed > to support it unless packagers notify/assist them rather than keeping > patches to themselves. OpenBSD is not trying to foster adoption. If it's useful to you then great. If not then that's also great, there are plenty of different OS to use in different circumstances. > To be clear are you implying the policy only applies to some and not > all who help with OpenBSD? The ports faq sections are an attempt to write-up how things are usually done to get new contributors up to speed without asking too many questions. They do not represent policy. There are some problems with them, do not take them as being 100% correct. > I will likely not be providing further info on the PR as I don't > directly use OpenBSD so have no way to properly validate the > changes, hence the mail asking for additional assistance and the > note for him in it. It doesn't really make sense to open a PR for something which you are not involved in and have no way of testing, that is just frustrating for everyone involved.
