On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:54:48PM +1100, Rod Whitworth wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:29:10 +0000 (UTC), Stuart Henderson wrote: > > >On 2011-10-21, Rod Whitworth <glis...@witworx.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:23:28 -0400, Lawrence Teo wrote: > >> > >> Are you sure that the above changes are what you really want? > >> > >> I don't have access to my build machine ATM to do any real checking but > >> that segment I quoted above looks strange to my bleary eye. > > > >This is a diff of a diff, they are always hard to read. You get used > >to it after working on ports for a while! > > > >>>- # Registration file: > >>>- # Where to store the current registrations. > >>>- # An empty value means we do not save registrations. Make sure that > >>>+ # Memory settings > > > >This is a change in the context of a line which is being patched. > >(i.e. it's syncing with a change in the original file). > > > >>>+@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ user = nobody > >>> # the specified directory path does exist! > >>>+ # Note: If running in chroot jail, this path starts relative > >>>+ # to the jail. > >>> -registration_file = /var/lib/siproxd/siproxd_registrations > >>> +registration_file = siproxd_registrations > > > >This is ok, the default config did not run in a chroot jail, the port > >is changing this so this change is reasonable. However I think it may be > >slightly more clear to use "registration_file = /siproxd_registrations". > > > > > The glitch I thought I saw was: > - # An empty value means we do not save registrations. Make sure that > followed by: > # the specified directory path does exist! > > Did that not leave an orphaned bit of a sentence?
Rod, thank you for your comments. To make it easier to discuss, here's the relevant part of the diff that you're concerned about: @@ -11,21 +11,50 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-doc_siproxd_conf_example +chrootjail = /var/siproxd/ ###################################################################### - # Registration file: - # Where to store the current registrations. - # An empty value means we do not save registrations. Make sure that + # Memory settings +@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ user = nobody # the specified directory path does exist! + # Note: If running in chroot jail, this path starts relative + # to the jail. -registration_file = /var/lib/siproxd/siproxd_registrations +registration_file = siproxd_registrations The diff is patching the patch-doc_siproxd_conf_example that used to apply against siproxd 0.5.13. siproxd 0.5.13's siproxd.conf.example file had the "Registration file" section on the lines where siproxd 0.8.1's "Memory settings" section is now located. 0.5.13 does not have a "Memory settings" section at all, so the patch is just making sure that it will apply correctly in 0.8.1. Here's how that snippet in siproxd 0.8.1's siproxd.conf.example looks like as-is in the original source tarball (before patching with the new patch): ###################################################################### # Registration file: # Where to store the current registrations. # An empty value means we do not save registrations. Make sure that # the specified directory path does exist! # Note: If running in chroot jail, this path starts relative # to the jail. registration_file = /var/lib/siproxd/siproxd_registrations And here's how it looks like after patching with the new patch: ###################################################################### # Registration file: # Where to store the current registrations. # An empty value means we do not save registrations. Make sure that # the specified directory path does exist! # Note: If running in chroot jail, this path starts relative # to the jail. registration_file = siproxd_registrations The only change is the registration_file value, and the sentence in the comments will not be orphaned at all. Hopefully this makes sense and addresses your concerns. Thank you, Lawrence
