On 25.05.18 09:29, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Chris H <portmas...@bsdforge.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 22:16:42 +0200 "Bernhard Froehlich" <de...@bluelife.at>
said
Am 24.05.2018 21:06 schrieb Chris H <portmas...@bsdforge.com>:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:39:22 +0200 "Jason A. Donenfeld"
<ja...@zx2c4.com>
said >
Hi Chris, > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Chris H
<portmas...@bsdforge.com> wrote: > > > I should have no trouble introducing
Wireguard to the ports system today.
I'm not a native fluent speaker of FreeBSDese, but my
understanding is: > > a) Bernhard committed the two new packages to ports
today. > > b) If you update ports with portsnap, you can build them locally.
c) If you run `pkg install wireguard`, it fails because the build > >
servers haven't gotten to them and won't for several days. > > > > Does your
statement about "introducing WireGuard to the ports system" > > mean that
you intend to rectify (c) immediately, so we don't have to > > wait several
days for the build snapshot scripts to tick in cron? Or > > is it mostly
just related to not realizing (a)? > Sigh... > It was my understanding that
when I stepped up to adopt WireGuard, > and your ack to that. That *I* would
be adding the port. I wasn't able > to produce the port that same, or next
day, as I am already Maintainer > for nearly 150 ports. I have no trouble
with that list, except that > clang/llvm v5, and shortly after v6 became the
default versions in $BASE. > Which introduced a few pr(1)'s I needed to deal
with. > Now all the time I have spent researching, and staging to build the
port > have been laid to waste. Apparently you rescinded, and gave it to
Bernhard. > This project doesn't feel like a good match to me. > No hard
feelings, Bernhard. Have fun with the port.
Hi Chris,
I'm sorry that I was confusing people which was really not my intention. I
have also seen your ACK to create the ports and replied to you in private
to
offer my help. Then I joined in IRC and just wanted to get an idea how far
the FreeBSD support was. I ended up creating two very rough ports which
did
build but not pass poudriere and called it a day. I also did send you and
the
list a mail to avoid duplicate work - and hoped you take it as a base.
But I did not get any reply on the next day so I kept going and finished
the
ports yesterday with some good help from upstream.
Sorry for how that developed but I hoped you get in contact with either me
or
upstream which neither happened. We usually do not have the problem that
too
many people want to help out so I did not expect that this will be a
problem
for anyone.
Ahem. OK thank you for the kind words, and intentions, Bernhard. Like I
said;
no hard feelings. If you've already gotten that far. You might as well
finish.
FWIW while you *did* indeed shoot me, and the list a couple of notes. I was
never under the impression you were going to take it so far. Which
*ultimately*
left everyone concerned believing *you* were going to maintain it.
I only mention it, in hopes all of us might use the --verbose switch in the
future, in hopes of avoiding this sort of nonsense. :-) :-)
Thanks again, Bernhard!
--Chris
P.S. just in case it wasn't clear; feel free to finish, and submit your
work.
P.P.S. Just so you (and everyone else) knows; I'm already working on the
kernel module. Please keep in touch, should you also be interested, and have
any work of your own.
Hi chris,
to be crystal clear about that. My motivation is not to be maintainer
of any specific
port or anything like that but only to have technology available on
FreeBSD that I
personally need and/or want.
Usually for more complex ports this did lead to team efforts on our porting work
which was also what I did expect to happen for wireguard. Well it
turned out to be
easier than thought and upstream was also very helpful so in the end
that was more
like a one day of work effort to get the basic ports.
Nevertheless I would still be very happy to increase the bus factor
and team up with
multiple people to maintain wireguard. I think there will be more work
to be done in the
near future for wireguard on FreeBSD where a team effort would speed
up things for
sure:
- we need to support FreeNAS and pfsense to get it into their package systems
- documentation is still needed because it differs a bit from upstream
documentation (Handbook page?)
- wireguard kernel module (can that work already be seen somewhere?
upstream will be interested for sure)
- rc script(s)
- the regular maintenance for the port
The wireguard userspace tooling isn't that simple to use reliably. You
have to spawn the wireguard-go process before the config can be loaded
and it can die in the meantime and to you want to terminate it and
destroy the tun interface if the config contains errors. Doing this
without ugly hacks isn't possible given the interfaces offered by
wireguard-go. It would be really nice to be able to terminate
wireguard-go over the unix domain socket instead of a pkill.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
