On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:19:23AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote: > > Hello, > > > > portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for > > this is that while the version in ports is 1.3.7, there is a development > > release using a 2.0.0 version number. > > > > The diff below should limit the version check to the 1.x.x versions. > > > > -- > > Patrik Lundin > > > > Index: Makefile > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/ports/security/softhsm/Makefile,v > > retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 > > diff -u -p -u -r1.1.1.1 Makefile > > --- Makefile 23 Jun 2015 11:26:05 -0000 1.1.1.1 > > +++ Makefile 27 Aug 2015 16:00:25 -0000 > > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > > # $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.1.1.1 2015/06/23 11:26:05 jca Exp $ > > > > +PORTROACH= limit:^1\. > > + > > SHARED_ONLY= Yes > > > > COMMENT= software PKCS\#11 cryptographic token > > > > My opinion is still that the original diff above is the correct one. While > I understand the reaction from other people on the list that it would be > troublesome to make portroach blind to "newer" releases, I am still > convinced that the 2.x branch is not relevant to this port at all. > > This means we are currently doing the opposite of making portroach miss > new releases: we are making it harder for people to spot real > unmaintained code which could be considered just as bad. > > If you don't trust my personal judgement on this, maby looking at other > projects having a separate package for the 2.x branch can help sway your > opinion: > > FreeBSD: > http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portoverview.py?category=security&portname=softhsm2 > > Debian: https://packages.debian.org/sid/softhsm2 > > At the end of the day I hope my maintainer status would make you trust > my judgement. This port is my responsibility after all.
It's not that we don't trust you. But I think it's the first time I see that softhsm2 would be a totally different port (i.e. security/softhsm2). If that's the case, then yes of course your diff is fine. -- Antoine
