On 2017/07/13 14:02, Miller, Vincent (Rick) via freebsd-ports wrote: > A new port request (PR #219823) for py-sispy, of which I am > maintainer, was recently committed to ports’ HEAD though the code > committed differs slightly from the code submitted in that sources > are pulled from CHEESESHOP vs GitHub. The sources at CHEESESHOP do > not contain the license file -- resulting in a failed build -- while > the LICENSE file _does_ exist on GitHub and results in a built > package. distinfo has also changed because of this. > > Is the change from USE_GITHUB to MASTERSITES=CHEESESHOP necessary? > The port builds fine when sources are pulled from GitHub. According > to the author, GitHub is the official source repo for the project. > > Please “reply-all” as this email address is not subscribed to this > list. >
The convention for py- ports is that they should use
MASTERSITES=CHEESESHOP unless there are good reasons to use some other
location.
Not having a copy of the license file in the distfile is not generally
sufficient reason on its own to avoid pypi -- the port should simply set
LICENSE but not LICENSE_FILE.
Ensuring a degree of consistency amongst a whole class of ports is a
good thing in that it reduces the amount of code overall that needs to
be maintained. It helps maintainers and ports committers by keeping
things similar and familiar. However, having said that, none of the
conventions in the ports are so strict that exceptions cannot be made.
You just need to show that doing it differently simplifies or clarifies
the port or results in some other valid benefit.
If deleting the LICENSE_FILE line from your py-sispy port fixes the
problem (and I believe it will) then my advice would be to switch to
CHEESESHOP.
Cheers,
Matthew
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
