On 2025/03/18 10:17, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > I didn't look much at the openrdap.org client before (go is a bit
> > of a turn-off ports-wise), but now I've tried it, actually I like it the
> > best of the three - cleaner output than both rdapper/icann-rdap, under
> > a minute to build, and doesn't pull in 80+ p5-* deps. I'll attach a
> > first cut at a port for that too.
> 
> It definitely is the one I like best, too. Although it only adds two
> mostly dead archs to the ones icann-rdap supports :)

true :)

> I have no real opinion on the naming of ports and binaries but I'm ok
> with importing this go port with whichever consensus emerges.
> 
> > +# ring-v0.17.8 does not support this arch
> > +NOT_FOR_ARCHS =	sparc64
> 
> I think we should not mention the patch version in these comments.
> ring v0.17 won't grow sparc64 support.

yes, fair point.


After some offlist discussion I've imported openrdap as net/openrdap,
with bin/openrdap binary name (if we ever get something in base then
there would be a good chance that might be named "rdap" too, so I'd
like to preemptively avoid the conflict), though I expect I'll end up
using it fairly often so am symlinking locally.