On 2025/03/18 10:17, Theo Buehler wrote: > > I didn't look much at the openrdap.org client before (go is a bit > > of a turn-off ports-wise), but now I've tried it, actually I like it the > > best of the three - cleaner output than both rdapper/icann-rdap, under > > a minute to build, and doesn't pull in 80+ p5-* deps. I'll attach a > > first cut at a port for that too. > > It definitely is the one I like best, too. Although it only adds two > mostly dead archs to the ones icann-rdap supports :)
true :) > I have no real opinion on the naming of ports and binaries but I'm ok > with importing this go port with whichever consensus emerges. > > > +# ring-v0.17.8 does not support this arch > > +NOT_FOR_ARCHS = sparc64 > > I think we should not mention the patch version in these comments. > ring v0.17 won't grow sparc64 support. yes, fair point. After some offlist discussion I've imported openrdap as net/openrdap, with bin/openrdap binary name (if we ever get something in base then there would be a good chance that might be named "rdap" too, so I'd like to preemptively avoid the conflict), though I expect I'll end up using it fairly often so am symlinking locally.
