From: "Kirill Bychkov" <kirby@linklevel.net>
Subject: Re: should we keep net/go-ipfs in ports?
To: ports@openbsd.org
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 14:26:01 +0300

On Wed, February 19, 2025 14:01, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2025/02/19 04:48, Lydia Sobot wrote:
>> >I've noticed that official binaries for OpenBSD are available from
>> >upstream as you can see here
>> >https://docs.ipfs.tech/install/command-line/#install-official-binary-distributions.
>> >Also those are a newer version than the one we have in ports and they
>> >offer ipfs-cluster OpenBSD binaries as well, which we don't have in
>> >ports.
>> They don't have ARM64 binaries for *BSD, so purely personally I feel like
>> maybe just updating the port might be better, and maybe adding the cluster
>> binaries
>> However, shouldn't this port be renamed to kubo?
>
> the package was renamed to kubo in 2022, and packages rather than ports
> are the main user-facing interface for installing it. moving the port to
> a different dir loses cvs history so we don't usually bother. (I note
> that upstream hasn't renamed the binary either).
>
> there doesn't seem to have been much interest in this software on
> ports@. and it does seem like something where providing an old version
> is a bit of a disservice to users. many of the updates to this port
> have only been prompted by reports of it being broken. perhaps it
> would be better to remove if there's not an active maintainer.
>
> $ make test
> No regression tests for kubo-0.33.2
>
> cheat sheet for updating most go ports: bump MODGO_VERSION,
> "make modgo-gen-modules > tmp; mv tmp modules.inc; make makesum"
>
>
Hi,
Here is the patch to update kubo to latest version (0.35.0) with small
tweak in README.
Works fine for me. OK to commit?