Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:50:51 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 192347] [maintainer update] multimedia/universal-media-server: Update to 4.0.1 + FIXES Message-ID: <bug-192347-13-t3ysWtjfVS@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-192347-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-192347-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D192347 John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|In Discussion |Open Assignee|freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD. |robak@freebsd.org |org | --- Comment #19 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to dreamcat4 from comment #17) > (In reply to John Marino from comment #14) > > It still doesn't answer the question: Why mess with the pkg-plist inste= ad of > > just fixing the script or reporting the script broken on the previous b= ug > > report? >=20 > Yeah, agree here this question is not answered by me. But I think you can= 't > be satisfied with my explanation, which is this: To be utterly safe in te= rms > of FUNCTIONAL behaviour. To stay on the side of safety. Because the known > tested FUNCTIONAL configuration (by me) is the old ways. (you say isn't > correct). So in other words, there was no identified problem. As far as anybody knows the committed pkg-plist worked fine. > I still don't fully understand (myself) commiter #1's ALL of his 'pkg-pli= st' > changes in their entirety. And this is because he didn't bother to explain > it (to me). He just said "take a look". And immediately closed / committe= d. He should explain his logic. > * Allows people involved to move on to other higher-priority issues becau= se > many other things in Ports tree are more seriously broken than this. Only the script was broken, so only the script needs to be fixed. > * the guy who committed them made a boo-boo and didn't really do it > properly.=20 He didn't see that you were using PLIST_SUBS in the RC script. Simple oversight. > Then I can't seriously be expected to say "just continue to do it HIS way > and I assume it'll all be fine," >=20 > "well probably, since that was some new configuration i had never seen > before and had never functionally tested myself"=20 >=20 > OR i could instead say: >=20 > "Here, take this last known - good patch, which I tested last week and all > was working 100% fine with the log file, pid file, rc.d script, etc, etc= =E2=80=A6" >=20 > So that's what I say / said. Please don't give me extra grief about it wh= en > I wasn't the guy who fluffed it up. Part of the issue is you are now mixing bugs. It would have been better to reopen the PR (yes, you can do that), announce that the script was busted a= nd ask what the reason for the pkg-plist change was. Once that was resolved, then you should have opened this PR to a simple ver= sion upgrade. In fact, you can still do that. I am going to assign this PR to the guy that did that last commit, with the recommendation that he process this PR. Assuming that he has good rationale for the pkg-plist change and it works, then I would recommend that this PR = only fix the script and do the update. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-192347-13-t3ysWtjfVS>