Solved Why my port is not being added or reviewed?

spmzt

spmzt

Have you tried bumping your port on the mailing list? That is the best way if you have nobody to lean on.

Write up why you feel this needs to be in the ports tree. Nobody wants a port only one person will use.
So it should have some traction with other users to help it along...
Publicize it to get it traction. Put feelers out in mailing list.

Forum exposure can't hurt worthy software.
 
Phishfry said:
Write up why you feel this needs to be in the ports tree. Nobody wants a port only one person will use.
Click to expand...
Just in a case this isn't clear: patches aren't being ignored because they are somehow not worthy, it's rather that the port committers routinely ignore most submission unless you pester them. It's not necessary to provide the sales pitch for a new port either.
 
Maintained ports seem to get a priority on being committed. Yours is, so that helps already.

For new ports, they give a higher priority to using shar submissions over diff patches. That might be it. They give the highest priority to git, but many don't use that, and there's committers who will go with shar pretty quickly. The way to do this is in the Porters Handbook, and you've done it another way, so it's not more difficult than what you've already done.

It's something like tar cf directoryname.shar --format shar directoryname pertaining to the new port directory.

For changes to an existing port, not a new port, shar isn't available, so use the kind of diff patch that you've used.

Some committers ignore things that aren't in git, but there are enough who accept shar and diff submissions. Shar is only for new ports, and is the preferred way for new ports after git. If this isn't it, I wouldn't be sure why. There's just lots of port bugs.

You can try the IRC channel for ports. They'll take a look at it, and someone may pick it up and commit it before you know it.

Another thing, is that, they moved the WWW address of the website from the description file to the Makefile. They've made this change for many ports, with the reason, that the description file gets forgotten often, and if the upstream website changes, it gets left behind.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes, the license file's name is COPYING in the source directory. Often, it's obviously named LICENSE.

He mentioned ports-mgmt/portlint, and if the jail being used allows, ports-mgmt/portfmt is also needed.

The package de[cl]ares a run time (install_requires) dependency on the 'distro' package [3], but this dependency is not declared in the port
Click to expand...
This begs the question: if it was built from a clean install, perhaps in a jail, or if another dependency of the port took care of this dependency before the compile reached this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top