| Summary: | [revive port] www/dansguardian: Commercial LICENSE terms changed | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Federico <f.roman.f+bsdbugs> |
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody) <ports-bugs> |
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | garga, marino |
| Priority: | --- | Keywords: | needs-patch, needs-qa |
| Version: | Latest | ||
| Hardware: | Any | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
|
Description
Federico
2015-12-07 11:53:07 UTC
Federico, thanks for the request. The port was previously deleted from the tree because it was dependent on deprecated version of Squid: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=368306 Has that situation changed? Could you please verify and if so, submit a patch proposal to revive the port? You can take a look at the revival process (all but the last commit step): https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/ports.html#ports-qa-re-adding I've added the previous maintainer to CC. As a side-note, please take a look at www/e2guardian, a fork of Dansguardian. Thanks! I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge (yet...) to submit a patch. Also, I think that Squid dependency is wrong. I used Dansguardian with Squid 3.3 and I'm sure it works with Squid 3.5 (with Linux, I must confess). The dependency should be with any squid. Reviving the port would require a fully tested shar file or diff from last known state of the port from the person that would be the new maintainer (ports can't be revived without maintainers). Closing based on final comment which indicates no such submission is coming. |