On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 07:45:26AM -0800, Chris Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:05:21AM +0100, Solene Rapenne wrote: > > Sending new ports is really hazardous, even for people with commit > > rights. Reviewing a port take time because the OpenBSD project has a > > high quality standard and it's preferred to correctly work on the ports > > before they get included. This is sometimes discouraging, but there are > > only volunteers here doing reviews on their free time and there are no > > performance obligation. People review what they use or enjoy, we can't > > force anyone to review something they don't like. This doesn't mean > > we shouldn't send new ports, but sometimes, when we send a port, it's > > either missed or the person who may have interest in it is busy and > > will forget. That's why a ping can be very useful from time to time. > > > > If you make a port, at least you can use it for yourself before it get > > included, which is quite useful for keeping your system clean. > > > > Except that others are requesting this be ported into OpenBSD for years. > This is accounting software. It needs to be thoroughly tested or > companies may fail. SMB stands for small to medium sized businesses. > > As an interesting note. During the 1.2 and 1.3 stages, a long time ago, > I almost got this into the tree. FreeBSD did. Then both here and at > FreeBSD, the work was abandoned. > > I see a ton of new ports and updates that never get reviewed. I see many > posts to this list and other lists about these. They get > mentioned, but the port is lost. > I hate to see this work hopelessly lost. So much work for nothing. It > hurts OpenBSD. > > I have a big proposal. It would require some tough rules to avoid being > a disaster tree. But it would leave these ports visible. > > Something like this: > > /usr/dirty_ports/ with a category tree in it that only has categories > with ports inside of them. > It could only be run by -current. > The size of the tree would need some method of regulation to not grow > hopelessly large. > But the size would show how many ports need reviews and it would let > someone review ports whenever they have some free time. > > /usr/dirty_ports/devel/myport/review_problems/notes to tell what the > problems are. Maybe just a ping, maybe what can't be figured out with > that port or a dependency it needs. > > pkg_add LedgerSMB > This port is found under /usr/dirty_ports/. > No packages are ever built for these ports. > Please help the project and review these ports. > These ports require running -current. > You will need to build these ports yourself. > No support will be provided for systems running these ports as they > may cause stability and security problems. > Please add USE_DIRTY_PORTS=Yes to /etc/mk.conf > > This would be good enough for me and extremely satisfying that my work > isn't lost for all time when I disappear, which also includes unpleasant > things like death. > It also means that some people won't wander off into using an OS that > they don't really want to change to, but supports the software they > need. > After a certain time period, these ports could be removed if never > approved. > > -- > Maybe? > Chris Bennett >
Are you aware of https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip? --
