[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Miscellaneous things.

OK, I have been following the ports discussion and I think I partially
agree. In an ideal world, any piece of software that would run under
OpenBSD should be in the ports; agreed. The reality is such that there
will always be a number of packages that may work and may not even
require porting effort to get them to somehow work. Also, there will
be lag between what is in the ports and what is the software's most
recent version.

Why don't we try to not see it so black and white. I suggest that
there should be levels of ports. The current packages listed on the
ports status page presumably work on at least one OpenBSD platform,
compile without problems, install in all the right locations, have
maybe been security reviewed, and possibly enhanced otherwise for
OpenBSD. What happens if these changes get fed back to the package's
author? There is no porting required and the package disappears from
the list?

I still think that a Web page with a software matrix would help (and
let me reiterate that I am willing to be the maintainer). Rough
categorization like the one on the ports page should be
maintained. For each package, the following fields would be used:

Last Update
Ported (check-box)
Native (check-box)
Generic (check-box)
Audited (check-box)
Port maintainer

Included means it comes with OpenBSD and should indicate the OpenBSD
version. Ported means it is in the ports tree. Native means the
authors package has made the effort to make OpenBSD a target. Generic
means it will run on OpenBSD, no special effort required, but it may
not install in the right place. Most of this information can be
auto-generated from the files discussed.