On 2009/09/01 14:26, Brad Tilley wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm working on a port (my first) of a tool I use at times on Windows > and Linux. It's called ent and it does statistical tests on streams of > data. It attempts to tell if data is random and/or encrypted. I have a > basic port that works, builds and installs on i386, amd64 and sparc64 > in current releases. I spoke with the author via email and he's OK > with an OpenBSD port, but I had a few questions before continuing: > > 1. The author (John Walker http://www.fourmilab.ch/random/) placed the > software in the public domain and does not use version numbers. Last > release appears to be January 2008. So, it's a mature software that > does not see lots of updates. Should I put a version number on it? I > noticed the Debian GNU/Linux folks numbered it.
A version number of some sort is required, see packages-specs(7) > 2. How much tweaking of the author's make file is acceptable, I added > a target for make all and made it always link statically (the author > suggested this). I'd like to further simplify the make file by > removing a few things. Is that sort of thing OK? It's a simple, small > tool that does not really need flavors or any complex build options > and while -static makes it a bit larger (500k total), it does not seem > to hurt anything else. What's the reason for making it static? > 3. The author distributes ent in a .zip archive named random.zip. I > add unzip as a build dependency and everything extracts and builds OK, > but looking at other ports, very few (if any) are distributed as zips. > Should I unzip it and repackage it as a tar.gz to be more OpenBSD > idiomatic? EXTRACT_SUFX=.zip takes care of the build dependency anyway. zip isn't a problem. Having a distfile that can change when the author updates it is at best annoying, if the author is keen not to distribute in a file named with some kind of version number (a simple YYYYMMDD date would be fine) we usually mirror the file under a different filename.
