Re: pkg/49421 (tme-1.0beta_4)

[phabrics%phabrics.com@localhost]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/49421; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: phabrics%phabrics.com@localhost
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: pkg/49421 =?UTF-8?Q?=28tme-=31=2E=30beta=5F=34=29?=
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 00:05:51 -0700

 Hi Dave,
 
 Thanks for the input/pointers. I'm more than willing to become upstream. 
   I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but this was my first crack at it so 
 I wasn't sure of the best way to proceed. I looked over the patches that 
 were already there for tme-0.8 and incorporated them into what I 
 submitted as well, so they are covered.  While it may be possible to 
 break the work into modular patches, I believe the better option here is 
 just to "up" the release number as I did and submit it "as is".
 
 One of my original goals was to expand cross-platform support: I added 
 equivalent functionality for Linux & other BSDs and made sure it worked 
 on most of the later versions of them, updating the autotools versions 
 as well.  But NetBSD is still the true home of this project, so I wanted 
 it to be incorporated here - not the least of which because NetBSD runs 
 best as an emulated guest on TME - although I'm still looking into a few 
 issues there, like X support.
 
 So, any help as to what to do with regards to becoming upstream is 
 greatly appreciated.  Is it just a simple matter of submitting it under 
 the original name?  Or do I need to join a team first?  Do I host the 
 code elsewhere, like wip? I guess I was hesitant, as I wasn't the 
 original developer, nor an official NetBSD contributor, but if that is 
 ok, then I will do that.  I will continue researching this option some 
 more, but any pointers are greatly appreciated.
 
 Regards,
 Ruben
 
 PS: If it becomes necessary, I can certainly submit patches or one 
 gigantic jumbo patch, but what I have is already out there, so it is 
 preferable to become upstream. I am still actively working on it, making 
 improvements where I can and documenting it better.  Unless there are 
 any objections, I would prefer to pursue this option.
 
 On 2015-01-17 22:40, David Holland wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/49421; it has been noted by 
 > GNATS.
 > 
 > From: David Holland <dholland-pbugs%netbsd.org@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: pkg/49421 (tme-1.0beta_4)
 > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 05:35:15 +0000
 > 
 >  On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:55:01PM +0000, phabrics%phabrics.com@localhost wrote:
 >   >  Thank you for your interest in this.  I am not the original tme
 >   >  developer, which is why I did not submit it as a replacement.  
 > This
 >   >  package just contains some "upgrades" to the original package 
 > which
 >   >  seems to have been static for a while now (save for a few patches 
 > here &
 >   >  there).  These were my own work to try to get it to a "working 
 > enough"
 >   >  state on some of my other boxes, as well as enhancements for them 
 > for
 >   >  another project of mine to use as dependency at some point.  It 
 > had
 >   >  gotten to the point where I had made enough updates that I thought 
 > it
 >   >  would be worth sharing, but too big to be a patch.  If this 
 > duplication
 >   >  is undesirable, I can resubmit to replace, but I didn't want to 
 > presume
 >   >  that because it would be a major update and I wanted it to work 
 > well
 >   >  enough not disturb anyone else who might depend on the original.
 > 
 >  If you're developing the thing, but you don't (yet?) want to become
 >  upstream, what I'd suggest is putting together upstreamable patches
 >  and posting them for download. Then we can add in the patch in pkgsrc,
 >  possibly even as a build option in the main package. And if upstream
 >  comes back to life, you're ready to send them what you've been doing.
 > 
 >  I do some of this; see http://www.netbsd.org/~dholland/patchkits/.
 > 
 >  --
 >  David A. Holland
 >  dholland%netbsd.org@localhost