On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 02:00:06AM +0200, Soner Tari wrote: > 1. Is there any specific reason I'm ignorant of, why any or all > software I mention above were not added to OpenBSD ports and > packages? Probably nobody needed them? Was there any discussion on > these software before, which I totally missed?
I'm not aware of any, though you could search the ports@ archives to satisfy your curiosity. > 2. How do you choose which software to add among OpenBSD ports? Ports are submitted, people test them, and then (barring license or other issues), devs decide to commit them. If the software is useful and well-ported, most submissions eventually will be committed. [...] > 4. What about the documentation? None of them are perfect. Submit patches to the documentation upstream? It's nice to have good docs, but it's not an absolute requirement. > 5. Do you think the license is OK? They are all GPL. Lots of ports are licensed under the GPL. The reservations[0] the project has about the GPL won't keep a good port from being committed. > 6. Is there any mismatch with OpenBSD philosophy? I mean, OpenBSD > is first of all for freedoms, but dansguardian is a web filter. On > the other hand, dansguardian is also an anti-virus HTTP gateway. What? That's bizarre. By that logic, should pf(4) be removed? > 7. Last but not the least, I've really needed them, but is there > any interest among other OpenBSD users in any of these software? If you've prepared ports (I can't tell from your mail), clean them up and submit them. If you haven't yet prepared ports, you might as well, as it will a) make it easier to install them in the future and b) make it more likely that someday you'll be able to simply install the package from an FTP mirror. [0] http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html -- o--------------------------{ Will Maier }--------------------------o | web:.......http://www.lfod.us/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | *------------------[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]------------------*
