Bug 260105 - [NEW PORT] net/teamviewer-iot-agent The TeamViewer IoT Agent provides an out-of-the-box secure remote access and file transfer solution for your IoT environment and connected devices.
Summary: [NEW PORT] net/teamviewer-iot-agent The TeamViewer IoT Agent provides an out-...
Status: Closed Overcome By Events
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: amd64 Any
: --- Affects Many People
Assignee: Fernando Apesteguía
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2021-11-29 08:20 UTC by kram
Modified: 2023-08-11 06:32 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
shar of ports directory (9.52 KB, text/plain)
2021-11-29 08:20 UTC, kram 		no flags Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description kram 2021-11-29 08:20:01 UTC 
Created attachment 229779 [details]
shar of ports directory

The TeamViewer IoT Agent provides an out-of-the-box secure remote access and file transfer solution for your IoT environment and connected devices. The Agent seamlessly integrates with the latest TeamViewer Client, which enables you to remotely access your device. 

Version: 2.19.5

Limitation
The FreeBSD port is currently only available for x86_64 (amd64) architecture. Furthermore, the port is only verified against FreeBSD 12 and 13.


Further description can be found here:
https://github.com/teamviewer/FreeBSD_port_teamviewer-iot-agent
Comment 1 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-09 14:30:28 UTC 
Unfortunately this problem report did not attract attention from developers. 

Please, feel free to reopen should you think this port should be in our ports tree.

Closing.
Comment 2 Alexey Dokuchaev freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-10 04:57:45 UTC 
Please do not close valid PRs.
Comment 3 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-10 07:08:51 UTC 
(In reply to Alexey Dokuchaev from comment #2)
Please, provide a definition for "Valid PR".
Also, please point me to the place in the doc, wiki, etc, where it is said we can not close "new port" PRs.

Thanks.
Comment 4 Alexey Dokuchaev freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-10 07:23:03 UTC 
(In reply to Fernando Apesteguía from comment #3)
> Please, provide a definition for "Valid PR".
Any PR is valid unless you can show why it's not (incomplete patch, non-working program, fails to fetch, upstream disappeared, etc.) and give a PR author some time to reply/address those issues.  If PR remains in bad shape, then you can close it as invalid or due to feedback timeout.  I do not see anything like this in the audit trail.

> where it is said we can not close "new port" PRs.
Because it's rude and unfair to people who took time and effort to make a submission.  Closing PRs just because they didn't catch someone's attention makes us look bad in people's eyes and deprives them from making future contributions.

Closing them as FIXED when in fact nothing had been really done makes it even worse.  Plese don't do that.
Comment 5 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-10 07:37:49 UTC 
(In reply to Alexey Dokuchaev from comment #4)
Thanks for the insight.

Since I asked for where to find this criteria and got nothing, please, is there any chance that you document this somewhere in the official documentation or talk to the Triage Team and tell us about this rules?

Closing as FIXED was as mistake. Apologies to you and to the OP. It should have been OVERCOME BY EVENTS to reflect the fact that nobody in the project feels the necessity, or has the energy/time to work on this after one and a half years of this PR sitting in bugzilla.

That is what really does not reflect good in the project.

Reopening.
Comment 6 Alexey Dokuchaev freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-10 07:44:04 UTC 
(In reply to Fernando Apesteguía from comment #5)
> is there any chance that you document this somewhere in the official
> documentation or talk to the Triage Team and tell us about this rules?
Hmm, perhaps I can come up with something like that.  I'll check the docs again and probably open a DR with the amendment (I'll include you on reviewers list if/when I do).
Comment 7 Daniel Engberg freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-11 01:26:53 UTC 
It doesn't fetch so it's broken but I agree that FIXED isn't the correct category.

There appears to be an updated version here:
https://github.com/teamviewer/FreeBSD_port_teamviewer-iot-agent
Comment 8 kram 2023-08-11 06:18:35 UTC 
Thanks Daniel for notifying that the fetch is broken. During the time we submitted the port (end of 2021) and now, some things changed. 
While I was looking into getting that fixed I found a new documentation available here for submitting new ports: 
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/quick-porting/#porting-submitting

Can you confirm that this the the right way of doing it? 
As this documentation is highlighting that shar ports are no longer accepted. Means we anyway should do a complete new way of creating the port submit.
Comment 9 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-11 06:28:01 UTC 
(In reply to kram from comment #8)
Yes, shar submissions have been deprecated and that is the current documentation.
Comment 10 kram 2023-08-11 06:29:44 UTC 
(In reply to Fernando Apesteguía from comment #9)
Thanks Fernando. In that case this Bug can be closed and we will submit it with the new way.
Comment 11 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2023-08-11 06:32:47 UTC 
Thanks!