02.01.2026 12:24, Edd Barrett пишет:
> Hi again,
> 
> Sorry to continue the syncthing saga, but:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 10:26:27PM +0000, Edd Barrett wrote:
>> If you look at the CVS log for patch-lib_build_build_go, then we see that the
>> "kill phone home" change was committed by job@, perhaps in agreement with kn@.
>>
>> If you want to change that behaviour, you'd have to take it up with them.
>> Personally I don't mind it asking on first run, but if other developers object,
>> then we will keep it. I'm not touching this for now.
> 
> Thinking about this some more, I wonder if we misunderstood the intent of
> patch-lib_build_build_go.
> 
> The log message for the commit that added the patch says:
> 
> ```
> Unbreak syncthing, update to 1.23.2rc1, disable phone-home
> ```

Original thread: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=167689062106602&w=2

  | This turns up in 'syncthing serve --no-browser' output, I don't like it,
  | can you disable it?
  |
  |  [2QRYX] 2023/02/20 19:36:45 INFO: Anonymous usage reporting is \
  |  always enabled for candidate releases.

tl;dr: I asked whether job could disable it and he did, but what or why
is lost to me.

> 
> so that patch was introduced *as part of an update to a release candidate*.
> 
> And in build.go, there's a comment:
> 
> ```
> // Release candidate builds are also "betas" from this point of view and
> // will have that debugging enabled. In addition, some features are
> // forced for release candidates - auto upgrade, and usage reporting.
> ```
> 
> In light of this, looks like the intent of the patch was not to disable
> syncthing from asking for permission to send usage reports, but instead to
> disable *unconditionally sending usage reports in release candidates*.
> 
> kn@, job@ -- is that correct? We don't mind syncthing asking for permission to
> send usage reports?

Yes, that's what I'd expect:  Do not send anything by default, but certainly
retain any features asking or doing that.

> 
> If asking is fine, we can simplify what I committed yesterday slightly:
> 
>  - remove the patch that disables asking.
>  
>  - optionally: put back patch-lib_build_build_go, just in case we ever package
>    a release candidate again in the future.

Or just leave a Makefile comment near the version for porters to consider this.

> 
> Cheers
>