"Ali H. Fardan" <r...@firemail.cc> writes: > On 2016-08-12 23:03, j...@wxcvbn.org wrote: >> If you want to do contributions to the ports tree, remember that many >> ports have a maintainer. This maintainer should either be contacted >> first or Cc'ed when sending a patch to ports. > > apologies > >> >> Probably, but not as is. >> > > of course > >> This checks has no value for the ports tree, and it would do more harm >> than good, should upstream accept the patch as is. What if pledge(2) >> becomes available on another OS? > > if pledge became available on another OS, it would be their job to use > this patch,
>From a general POV, if the point of the patch we include in the ports tree is to be pushed upstream, I don't see why the use of pledge(2) wouldn't be as automatic as possible if available, just like for any other function. > also I wrote the #ifdef because I intended to submit this > patch to the mainstream sic, but I changed my mind and I thought that > this is the correct place to do it, so it is not necessary to include > it. Joerg knows better than us whether the use of pledge should be pushed upstream. :) -- jca | PGP: 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
