Created attachment 242153 [details] Patch to update jwhois to 4.0.73 Upstream jwhois is moribund for > 10 years (see maintainer-email.txt attachment in subsequent comment). Fedora has been maintaining a branch at https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/jwhois/4.0/73.fc38/src which contains many additional patches and brings the port to 4.0.73. The attached diff brings these fixes to FreeBSD, takes maintainership, and fixes a typo in pkg-descr.
Created attachment 242154 [details] Email from maintainer stating project is moribund
4.0.73 is not a jwhois version and jwhois version is still 4.0. 73 is Fedora's package revision so "Update to jwhois to 4.0.73" is not correct. Please don't jump PORTREVISION from 7 to 73. Even if we apply the same patches as Fedora's revision 73, our version must be incremented. I would suggest you use PATCH_SITES and PATCHFILES to record where patches come from.
Created attachment 242179 [details] revised-patch What do you think of my revised patch?
(In reply to Koichiro Iwao from comment #3) The patch looks good, with the exception of a few minor things described below. I agree that it is much better to fetch the patches from the Fedora repository rather than having a monolithic patchfile as part of the port. The SUB_LIST doesn't seem to be correct - we end up with "/usr/local/lynx" instead of the expected "/usr/local/bin/lynx". Also, do you think we should list lynx as a dependency (or at least an OPTION)? Is there any way to fetch the jwhois.conf file from Fedora instead of including it in the port's files subdirectory? That file is one of the major fixes and fetching it from Fedora should make it easier to track future changes. I understand what you're saying about PORTREVISION=, but we should have some way of noting the Fedora jwhois release the port is based on. If we're going to bundle jwhois.conf.in in the files subdirectory, perhaps edit it to indicate the Fedora jwhois RPM version it was derived from? Thanks for your work to improve my submission.
(In reply to Terry Kennedy from comment #4) Thanks for pointing out wrong path for lynx. That's my careless mistake. Regrding jwhois.conf, it is possible. Please wait for a while until I create updated patch.
Created attachment 242186 [details] revised-patch-2 Here's an updated patch. It is a little bit hacky but now the port fetches Fedora's SRPM and applies patches included in SRPM. Also, jwhois.conf is installed from SRPM. > I understand what you're saying about PORTREVISION=, but we should have some way of noting the Fedora jwhois release the port is based on. If we're going to bundle jwhois.conf.in in the files subdirectory, perhaps edit it to indicate the Fedora jwhois RPM version it was derived from? What about noting pk in pkg-descr or COMMENT? Then we can know jwhois RPM version based on in `pkg info jwhois`.
Created attachment 242187 [details] revised-patch-3 Oops, the patch is not the correct one. This is I intended to attach.
Created attachment 242201 [details] Update pkg-descr to include info on source and version Your patch looks fine to me. Since we're already near the length limit in COMMENT=, I opted to put the source and version in pkg-descr.
A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=546af61fa720b0d4eff77ac6dd395cb504866e6b commit 546af61fa720b0d4eff77ac6dd395cb504866e6b Author: Koichiro Iwao <meta@FreeBSD.org> AuthorDate: 2023-05-15 04:19:11 +0000 Commit: Koichiro Iwao <meta@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2023-05-15 23:54:16 +0000 net/jwhois: import Fedora patches & pass to maintainer While here, use subst rather than using hardcoded path for lynx, tiny cleanups. PR: 271401 Reviewed by: meta (myself, revised submitter's patch) net/jwhois/Makefile | 32 +- net/jwhois/distinfo | 3 + net/jwhois/files/jwhois.conf (gone) | 1004 ----------------------------------- net/jwhois/pkg-descr | 2 + 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1014 deletions(-)
Committed, thanks! Feel free to add me to the CC list when you submit an update. Then I can pick your patch up.