www/tomcat8 is expiring on 2019-06-30. www/madsonic has a TOMCAT8 option which might be removed at that point. Can it be switched over to use www/tomcat85 or www/tomcat9 instead?
Will do. I have a local port for libresonic (Yet Another Subsonic Fork) using the new FLAVOR system along with support for the newer tomcat versions, and I'll clean that up and submit a patch for madsonic along with an update to madsonic 6.2.9084. If I can make it generic enough I'd like to move my app container flavor logic out to a Uses/war.mk or something so multiple web app ports don't have to duplicate it and each require unique patches like this as container port versions come and go.
Can I drop the TOMCAT8 option until your patch is ready?
TOMCAT8 option removed.
A commit references this bug: Author: tobik Date: Sat Jul 6 09:43:05 UTC 2019 New revision: 505971 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/505971 Log: www/madsonic: Drop TOMCAT8 option www/tomcat8 has expired. PR: 238541 Changes: head/www/madsonic/Makefile
I have a change to update Madsonic to the newest 6.x version and add newer Tomcat ports but have been trying (and so far failing) to clarify the license. This project was GPLv3 when I submitted the port and seems to be so through all 5.x releases: https://github.com/MadMarty/madsonic-5.6/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/madsonic/madsonic/blob/master/license.txt The about page at https://www.madsonic.org/pages/about.jsp still claims "Madsonic is open-source software licensed under GPL." but that claim doesn't do much good if it's not actually available anywhere. It seems based on the thread at https://support.madsonic.org/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=2638 that Madsonic was "re-launched" for 7.0. The changelog shows plenty of work on Madsonic 7.0, but all downloads for it are hidden behind a Premium subscriber login. That makes me doubt the source code unavailability is a mistake. https://www.madsonic.org/pages/changelog.jsp https://www.madsonic.org/pages/member/download70.view This may be better submitted as a new PR, but I did not feel comfortable submitting an update to something calling itself "GPLv3" if I knew that to be untrue :)