Sunday, May 22, 2005

Sebentar lagi scamper masuk FreeBSD ports

berdasarkan send-pr yng saya buat yaitu ports/81186 dan hasil diskusi singkat dng Barner dan Mathew Luckie, dalam waktu dekan mudah-mudahan scamper bisa masuk FreeBSD ports tree.
link terkait:

cuplikan email:
----------------mulai cuplikan-------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:26:29 +0200
From: Simon Barner
To: Matthew Luckie
Cc: Dikshie

Matthew Luckie wrote:
> >I'd like to ask you, if ports/81186 should be closed, too, or if it's
> >okay to add the port to the FreeBSD ports collection.
> i've been sitting on a version of scamper much more recent than the one
> available on the website, in the hope that I'd have a paper published on
> the work first. but it is going to be 2 months before I hear about that.
> but the last thing i want to do is have a bunch of PRs open and then
> closed. the latest version of the code is much better, but it isn't
> without its flaws.
> the major flaw with this code, is that the PMTUD debugging code will
> only work with Ethernet cards; it bypasses the IP stack to write
> complete IPv4 and IPv6 packets using BPF so that the IP stack does not
> silently fragment them. also, it requires the gateway's mac address to
> be cached on the system, or it will silently fail on some of the more
> advanced techniques, as I haven't had time to implement arp properly yet.
> i was really hoping to be a maintainer on a scamper port; i developed
> this software on freebsd. the PLIST for the new version is the same at
> this time.


this is the reply Matthew send me when I asked him about the scamper
port (he is also in the recipient list of this email).

IMO if the original author of a software wants to be the FreeBSD
maintainer, then this wish should be respected, esp. in this case where
`scamper' is actively developed on FreeBSD.

> do you think it is ready to be a freebsd port? comments?

Yes, we have quite a lot of WIP software in the the tree, and since you
are actively developing the software, I see no reason why `scamper'
should not hit the ports collection. Of course, unless you object,

Having it in the ports collection would certainly prevent future PRs
that need to be closed (which might be quite discouraging for their

So, if both of you agree, I am ready to add a net/scamper port based on
the 20050516 snapshot.

---------------------------akhir cuplikan--------------------------------

No comments: