Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 11:28:11 +0100 From: Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de> To: "Michael Zoon" <ma.zoon@quicknet.nl> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 3. Updating "Bash" (Jerry) Message-ID: <20130104112811.6f093557@fabiankeil.de> In-Reply-To: <000c01cdea10$b005aa30$1010fe90$@quicknet.nl> References: <000c01cdea10$b005aa30$1010fe90$@quicknet.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/TKpLWhI8MZ+U3609ti7f8mL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Michael Zoon" <ma.zoon@quicknet.nl> wrote: > >From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> > >Bash is currently at Bash-Release: 4.2, patch level 42. The port's > >version is only at patch level 37, which was released on 16-Jul-2012. > >This is an important port and since the freeze is over with, I was > >wondering if this port will be updated? =20 > Hi, i have send last month the port maintainer also the latest files > To upgrade the port with latest patches. >=20 > However some months ago there was also problems > to get the latest patches for bash into the port system. > Many people did jump in here to get it done. >=20 > Digest 480 of 30-07-2012 says a lot > Including the ones a few versions older. >=20 > On the latest files I did send I did get no response at all > That's why I no longer will forward patches for bash. > But I agree that it is a important port and patches are not released for > nothing. On the other hand every patch has the potential of introducing new bugs so being conservative with updates is a valid strategy, too, and in the end it's up to the maintainer who'd take the blame for the breakage. Obviously being conservative isn't a good reason not to respond to patches, but if you don't submitted them as a PR there is also no way to know if your mail actually made it to the maintainer (or if maybe his answer didn't reach your inbox). =46rom your point of view sending a PR would also have the advantage of forcing the maintainer to either explicitly reject it or accept that somebody else commits it after a timeout. > But in the end its all upon the port maintainer to do it or not. > I really hope it not will take 6 months again to get the outdated port > updated. It looks like there currently is no shells/bash-devel, so why don't you submit it? You could then keep it at the bleeding edge and users could decide for themselves which update strategy they prefer. Fabian --Sig_/TKpLWhI8MZ+U3609ti7f8mL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlDmrsEACgkQBYqIVf93VJ3vIgCfesj2zgKk1lZDNX3TSLISwe2W UFMAoLZRpYxDe+wnvzWIcec6PLeXGg5D =Mc8+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/TKpLWhI8MZ+U3609ti7f8mL--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130104112811.6f093557>