From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 26 21:23:40 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mandree.no-ip.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765B3106566C for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:23:40 +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 D857723CF2A for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:22:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <503A93A4.3040207@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:22:44 +0200 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <503A8EF7.4060105@FreeBSD.org> <503A8F5B.9050706@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers? 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: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:23:40 -0000 Am 26.08.2012 23:06, schrieb Chris Rees: > On 26 August 2012 22:04, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 8/26/2012 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> The old Makefile headers, ala: >>> >>> # New ports collection makefile for: BIND 9.9.x >>> # Date created: 27 January 2012 >>> # Whom: dougb >>> # >>> # $FreeBSD: head/dns/bind99/Makefile 301487 2012-07-24 19:23:23Z dougb $ >>> >>> have not served a purpose for longer than almost anyone who has a ports >>> commit bit has been around. My proposal is simple, let's remove >>> everything before the # $FreeBSD$. >>> >>> In the past when this has been proposed the objection was that it would >>> cause too much churn. If we had done this back when we had 5,000 ports >>> then we would have solved the problem with less churn, and no drama for >>> the 15,000 ports that followed. Every day we don't do this we make the >>> "churn" problem worse, and deepen the roots of something that has no >>> relevance. >>> >>> Can we please just deal with this now and be done with it? ... and yes, >>> I am volunteering to help with and/or do the work myself. >> >> >> Yes please. >> >> If we can't agree to mass delete them with churn, let's at least agree >> to remove as we update ports, and in the template for new ports. >> > > Now in the days of Subversion... we could do the entire tree in one > lovely atomic commit! I'm not too sure if we should do that. The server-side changeset would be of humongous size. (OTOH that's a nice test for the infrastructure - but if it breaks, we're in for trouble).