On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:40:12PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > "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. :)
I submitted a diff to upstream, let's see how it goes.
