From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 18 07:14:57 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.emma.line.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7253106564A for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:14:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mandree@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A73C23CF42 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:14:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E4CBBEE.4040302@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:14:54 +0200 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <201108171436.p7HEaNYQ071778@fire.js.berklix.net> <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com> <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: sysutils/diskcheckd needs fixing and a maintainer X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:14:57 -0000 Am 18.08.2011 08:20, schrieb Chris Rees: > On 18 August 2011 09:03, wrote: >> Chris Rees wrote: >> >>> We don't want to provide broken software. >> >> Mark Linimon wrote: >> >>> ... it's obsolete, broken, junk ... >> >> Unless there is more to this than is reported in those two PRs, >> I'd call it a considerable exaggeration to describe diskcheckd >> as "broken". >> >> * http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/115853 >> is shown as "closed", so presumably is no longer a problem. > > Wow, would it have been too difficult to actually READ the closing > message from Jeremy? I suggest you look again -- I've pasted it here > so you can see it. > > "The problem here is that the code does not do what the manpage says (or > vice-versa). The 3rd column does not specify frequency of checking, but > rather, over what duration of time to spread a single disk scan over. > Thus, 7 days would mean "spread the entire disk check at X rate over the > course of 7 days". There is still a bug in the code where large disks > will cause problems resulting in updateproctitle() never getting called, > and so on, but that's unrelated to this PR. I'm closing the PR because > trying to fix all of this should really be ben@'s responsibility. > (Sorry for sounding harsh.)" > > How does that indicate it's fixed? It's an 'abandoned' PR. This would be a case for marking it suspended (or possibly analyzed, depending on which of these two fits best), rather than closing it. The status is also a statement... > Thank you for testing and investigating, this is what the port has > needed, and two days of being deprecated has achieved more than 18 > months of a PR being open. So the bottom line for this case is, we sometimes only get sufficient attention through deprecating ports. Unfortunately that approach might wear off some day. Too bad. :-( Do we need a "think twice before adding a port" habit?