Tengine is a fork of the popular web server nginx with enhanced features including support for DSO's. This is the development branch which has added support for SPDYv3 and other features not yet found in nginx.
Sorry, this should be: www/tengine-devel -- Jim Ohlstein
I'll take it.
A commit references this bug: Author: robak Date: Sun Jul 13 12:00:34 UTC 2014 New revision: 361673 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/361673 Log: New port www/tengine: Robust and small WWW server forked from nginx by Taobao Tengine is a web server originated by Taobao, the largest e-commerce website in Asia. It is based on the Nginx HTTP server and has many advanced features. Tengine has proven to be very stable and efficient on some of the top 100 websites in the world, including taobao.com and tmall.com. PR: 185836 Submitted by: Jim Ohlstein <jim@ohlste.in> Approved by: swills, marino (mentors) Changes: head/www/Makefile head/www/tengine/ head/www/tengine/Makefile head/www/tengine/distinfo head/www/tengine/files/ head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-agentzh-set-misc-nginx-module-config head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-calio-iconv-nginx-module-config head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-chaoslawful-drizzle-nginx-module-config head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-nginx-modsecurity-config head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-ngx_http_notice_module.c head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-ngx_http_sflow_config.c head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-ngx_http_sflow_config.h head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-ngx_http_upload_module.c head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-ngx_http_upstream.h head/www/tengine/files/extra-patch-ngx_postgres-config head/www/tengine/files/nginx.in head/www/tengine/files/patch-conf-nginx.conf head/www/tengine/files/patch-man-nginx head/www/tengine/pkg-descr head/www/tengine/pkg-plist
Thanks for your PR! This was committed as www/tengine because we've decided there's no sense in introducing the 1.x Tengine line to the ports tree.
(In reply to Bartek Rutkowski from comment #4) > Thanks for your PR! This was committed as www/tengine because we've decided > there's no sense in introducing the 1.x Tengine line to the ports tree. Thanks for looking at this after six months. I am curious as to why you took maintainership from me? I'm not married to the port but isn't it standard to have the port's creator be the maintainer?
> Thanks for looking at this after six months. I am curious as to why you took > maintainership from me? I'm not married to the port but isn't it standard to > have the port's creator be the maintainer? Yes it is - I would have let you as a maintainer, but I've mailed you twice letting you know I will be committing it and that I am making chances and I havent received any reply, so to committ it to the ports tree I had to be sure there will be an active maintainer - you wasnt looking like interested in the port anymore, so I decided to take it myself, to be able to commit it at all (you're still credited as the port author). If you're still interested, I am happy to set you as a maintainer, let me know.
(In reply to Bartek Rutkowski from comment #6) > > Thanks for looking at this after six months. I am curious as to why you took > > maintainership from me? I'm not married to the port but isn't it standard to > > have the port's creator be the maintainer? > > Yes it is - I would have let you as a maintainer, but I've mailed you twice > letting you know I will be committing it and that I am making chances and I > havent received any reply, so to committ it to the ports tree I had to be > sure there will be an active maintainer - you wasnt looking like interested > in the port anymore, so I decided to take it myself, to be able to commit it > at all (you're still credited as the port author). If you're still > interested, I am happy to set you as a maintainer, let me know. In looking back I see ONE email from June 19th, which I did indeed miss. However, there were no entries here in bugzilla which is where I would have expected to see them and where I have been looking, waiting patiently while at least a couple of versions of this port were released. I did see that you officially took the PR on July 1st, and then no entries until today. Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate that you did it, I just would have liked to have had the opportunity to be part of the public discussion on the changes that you proposed. One change that I am most curious about is why you removed the SPDY module and changed the OpenSSL requirements related to it.
> In looking back I see ONE email from June 19th, which I did indeed miss. > However, there were no entries here in bugzilla which is where I would have > expected to see them and where I have been looking, waiting patiently while > at least a couple of versions of this port were released. I did see that you > officially took the PR on July 1st, and then no entries until today. Don't > get me wrong. I do appreciate that you did it, I just would have liked to > have had the opportunity to be part of the public discussion on the changes > that you proposed. Well, sorry about that, but like I said, I've sent the emails and there was no reply, so I assumed a not very uncommon situation, where original poster is no longer interested in his submission and I acted in what I understood as best interest of the community, to update, fix and commit the port, even with me as a maintainer. Once again, I can only apologize for that, and make you the maintainer if you're still willing. > One change that I am most curious about is why you removed the SPDY module > and changed the OpenSSL requirements related to it. The SSL options have been grouped for better readibility of the port structure but there should be no other changes in functionality, are you saying you're seeing some error/mistake in the port?
(In reply to Bartek Rutkowski from comment #8) [snip] > > One change that I am most curious about is why you removed the SPDY module > > and changed the OpenSSL requirements related to it. > > The SSL options have been grouped for better readibility of the port > structure but there should be no other changes in functionality, are you > saying you're seeing some error/mistake in the port? Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Please look at the original submission, and then at the final version. The SPDY module option was removed. SPDY v3 requires OpenSSL 1.0.1 or greater. Hence the section that was removed: .if defined(NGINX_OPENSSL) USE_OPENSSL= yes .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MSPDY} .if ${OSVERSION} < 1000028 WITH_OPENSSL_PORT= yes .else WITH_OPENSSL_BASE= yes .endif .endif .endif The logic being that FreeBSD versions before 10 had OpenSSL 0.9.8 in the base and needed the to OpenSSL port (1.0.1) to work. The above stanza was taken DIRECTLY from www/nginx-devel: .if defined(NGINX_OPENSSL) USE_OPENSSL= yes .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MSPDY} .if ${OSVERSION} < 1000028 WITH_OPENSSL_PORT= yes .endif .endif .endif So the simplification to improve "readability" removed a major functionality. Once again, I don't understand why this was all discussed in PRIVATE, not publicly right here. Probably not unlike everyone else, I receive hundreds of emails daily, and many are simply filtered as unimportant. I'm sorry that I didn't recognize your name as the "sender". That should not happen again. Anything directly from bugzilla, though, would have had my attention.