Re: Care and Feeding

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 05:42:08PM -0400, Andras Farkas wrote:

Hi Andras,

I don't understand what your goal is.

A few years ago you wrote me you would like to make a port of tinyfuge
5. I suggested to make a new port tinyfugue5 and maybe name the binary
tf5 instead of tf.


I'm MAINTAINER of net/tinyfuge which uses version 4.

As screen handling and others changed a lot between the two versions I
prefer the old style. Thats why the port use tf 4.

> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:07 AM Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> > Re the first submission you pointed out, here is the comment:
> > - programmable MUD client, but beta rather than stable
> > This doesn't sound like something we want in ports.
> TinyFugue is a weird thing. Both tf4 and tf5 (which should be
> considered separate ports/packages) haven't been touched by the
> developer since January 2007, over a decade ago. They're
> unmaintained, except in a variety of forks of which none are an
> obvious most popular successor.
> Because of the lack of a clear successor and lack of motivation to
> change ("if it's not totally broken and unusable, don't fix it!")
> people still use _both_ of those often. TinyFugue's sourceforge
> supplies users tf5 by default.
> Some OSes/packagemanagers have only tf4 (openbsd, netbsd), some have
> only tf5 (freebsd, fedora), and some have both tf4 and tf5 available
> as separate packages (debian and all debian-based distros)
> I checked all those stats myself, but this link may be useful too:
> https://repology.org/project/tinyfugue/versions

First, I think your intention is to have a tf 5 port.

> Is it possible that tf4 could be removed from ports? It's definitely
> unmaintained, but still used by the people who prefer it over tf5.

Now you want tf 4 removed?

According to sourceforge both version were last modified in 2007.

> (though I make a point to only use tf5, since tf4 doesn't support TLS.
> However, I myself don't use tf as often as I used to, even though I
> still use it)
> In my own opinion, I think it's smarter to have no tinyfugue than to
> not have both tinyfugue versions. But that's just me, and definitely
> because I care a lot about secure connections to the MU*s I use.

You may use tf 4 with stunnel.

> > (Also in general, new ports are always trickier because there's a policy of
> > always needing a second developer ok to commit them, so you need to get two
> > dev's interested in it!)
> Ahaa, I see.
> > Second one: diff please! Don't forget the REVISION bump.
> Did it. :3 Sent it back in its original thread.

Regards
Markus