LGTM, but ultimately cem@ is the local expert.

Using all uppercase messages is bad, unless there is a panic.
Otherwise, LGTM.

LGTM

Do not touch inode.h.

Minor knits, otherwise LGTM.

FWIW, I'd like to see OpenBFS (haiku OS) supported some day on FreeBSD, so this support is welcome.

FWIW ....
I read gcov, but sys/gnu/gcov survived. Perhaps it was meant to be gprof?

LGTM, but gad is the expert.

FWIW, I got the BSD-1-Clause License approved by OSI, Approval is not terribly important as we only use it for a couple of files in the tree.
OTOH the very simplistic license would be useful to adopt for source header files (*.h).

Wow, I should have dropped it by accident: it was surely my intention to keep couchdb in services.

In D26966#618725, @yuripv wrote:

Looks like export is only ever used in export_pam_environment(), where its return value is ignored.

For the record: after discussing with Li-Wen Hsu, it has been suggested to wait until after the 12.1 EOL, and I am actually fine with that.

In D26817#601100, @imp wrote:

In D26817#601097, @pfg wrote:

First of all: thanks!

I should mention this was actually for a hacked linux binary-based intel compiler.

There exists a native FreeBSD [[ https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/tools/system-studio/freebsd.html | Intel System Studio ]]compiler that claims to be GCC compatible which may just work (I tihnk it may be based on clang, but I am not sure).

I keep hearing rumors of this item, but never have been able to get a copy through my friends at Intel. I'll have to send a few emails out to see if I can see if I can get access to one, though it's a fairly low propriety. I suspect, based on a lot of things, that this doesn't actually exist, but I'll poke and prod anyway.

First of all: thanks!

Re-state krb524

Update with cy's feedback.
This will be committed about a week after 12.2 is released.

Thanks, will update soon.

Merge latest current

In D25640#567710, @yuripv wrote:

In D25640#567601, @pfg wrote:

LGTM however, I would recommend an exp-run. Many times before have sed changes caused trouble in the ports tree to be later reverted.

Yep, I was looking at the svn log of usr.bin/sed/ and noticed quite a few backouts. I agree that exp-run should be done, but even if some ports break those would need to be fixed instead of rejecting this change as it's obvious bug (and yes, gsed agrees).

LGTM however, I would recommend an exp-run. Many times before have sed changes caused trouble in the ports tree to be later reverted.

I plan to re-commit this as soon as FreeBSD 12.2 is released, to avoid a limitation of the build system.

In D23259#543516, @fsu wrote:

In D23259#543509, @pfg wrote:

Sorry I meant to approve this:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24685

(fsu should have comandeered this one instead of opening a new one)

I did not managed with new diff uploading, diff did not want to attach to this revision.
Seems like, I can attach diffs only to revisions, which were opened by me.
Please correct me if I am wrong or lose something in the Phabricator UI.

Sorry I meant to approve this:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24685

In D13209#537057, @trasz wrote:

Ping? What's the status of this?

In D21638#531526, @asomers wrote:

Can we close this review now?

LGTM, but I have no time to test.
Note that this type of changes should be checked with an exxp-run

Update User Ports, attempting to bring balance with what can actually appear in a UNIX system.

I thought cem would want to do the commit.
I've been a bit sick, but I'll commit it this week if no one else does.

LGTM

The code is rather tricky, it would be convenient to checksum the object code on Little Endian to make sure nothing changes.

Approved BTW, the code obviously doesn't change anything for LE.

Hmm... if the tests pass I guess it is good, but does the comment need updating as well?
The else case in the old code was going backwards but this one doesn't.

It did compile but no joy sadly :(.
I left the complete log here:
https://people.freebsd.org/~pfg/docs/Xorg.0.log