> On 14 Aug 2016, at 00:33, Joerg Jung <m...@umaxx.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:40:12PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: >> "Ali H. Fardan" <r...@firemail.cc> writes: >> >>> On 2016-08-12 23:03, j...@wxcvbn.org wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Probably, but not as is. >>>> >>> >>> of course >>> >>>> This checks has no value for the ports tree, and it would do more harm >>>> than good, should upstream accept the patch as is. What if pledge(2) >>>> becomes available on another OS? >>> >>> if pledge became available on another OS, it would be their job to use >>> this patch, >> >> From a general POV, if the point of the patch we include in the ports >> tree is to be pushed upstream, I don't see why the use of pledge(2) >> wouldn't be as automatic as possible if available, just like for any >> other function. >> >>> also I wrote the #ifdef because I intended to submit this >>> patch to the mainstream sic, but I changed my mind and I thought that >>> this is the correct place to do it, so it is not necessary to include >>> it. >> >> Joerg knows better than us whether the use of pledge should be pushed >> upstream. :) > > I submitted a diff to upstream, let's see how it goes.
Finally, upstream committed a variation yesterday.
