On 2025/02/19 04:48, Lydia Sobot wrote: > >I've noticed that official binaries for OpenBSD are available from > >upstream as you can see here > >https://docs.ipfs.tech/install/command-line/#install-official-binary-distributions. > >Also those are a newer version than the one we have in ports and they > >offer ipfs-cluster OpenBSD binaries as well, which we don't have in > >ports. > They don't have ARM64 binaries for *BSD, so purely personally I feel like > maybe just updating the port might be better, and maybe adding the cluster > binaries > However, shouldn't this port be renamed to kubo?
the package was renamed to kubo in 2022, and packages rather than ports are the main user-facing interface for installing it. moving the port to a different dir loses cvs history so we don't usually bother. (I note that upstream hasn't renamed the binary either). there doesn't seem to have been much interest in this software on ports@. and it does seem like something where providing an old version is a bit of a disservice to users. many of the updates to this port have only been prompted by reports of it being broken. perhaps it would be better to remove if there's not an active maintainer. $ make test No regression tests for kubo-0.33.2 cheat sheet for updating most go ports: bump MODGO_VERSION, "make modgo-gen-modules > tmp; mv tmp modules.inc; make makesum"
