On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:07:22AM -0500, attila wrote: > > attila <att...@stalphonsos.com> writes: > > > attila <att...@stalphonsos.com> writes: > > > >> Hi ports@, > >> > > Feedback, comments, most welcome. > > > > Pax, -A > > Ping. Ports attached for convenience.
Fwiw, i've built the git tip of https://github.com/torbsd/openbsd-ports on current, and they build fine. Portswise, im pretty sure all the xpi ports don't need USE_GMAKE, but that's a cosmetic detail. FETCH_CMD in noscript/Makefile is a no-go, but that's already been said. I want to stress the fact that *if* those ports hit the tree, they wont get any special treatment - you'll have to make sure they're kept up-to-date in -current *and* in -stable (ie find someone to commit your diffs, eventually provide packages yourself until 'blessed' stable packages are a thing), since i suppose your end-users are especially crazy about running software without known vulns. I've read https://torbsd.github.io/blog.html#torblog0, and honestly, i think there's way too much fuss being done about this. From my personal POV (as an openbsd developer, and a mozilla developer), i don't really like the way TBB is developed (as stated before), but i've seen the relationship with upstream has improved, so i'd welcome your ports in the tree, especially because you've spent a lot of time on this, and i wouldnt want this work to be lost/stay unrecognized. Back to reading the ports now, but i would need other developers to comment on them :) Landry
