Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:46:03 -0700 From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us> To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [ports-i386@freebsd.org: linux-f10-flashplugin-10.3r181.34 failed on i386 9] Message-ID: <4E46C66B.1040002@mittelstaedt.us> In-Reply-To: <4e462f34.M0MwnBU6a9phTeTQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20110810060822.GZ60956@droso.net> <4E42E7F4.5040502@gmail.com> <201108111920.p7BJKGjc021859@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <4E44AEED.7070207@gmail.com> <4E45B36B.8050207@FreeBSD.org> <4e462f34.M0MwnBU6a9phTeTQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/13/2011 1:00 AM, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Doug Barton<dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On 08/11/2011 21:41, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: >>> I'm talking about stability here. Adobe silently shipped >>> another version and our port become unbuildable because >>> distfile wasn't available anymore. >> The correct answer to this problem is to update the affected >> ports. > > That certainly is the correct mid- and long-term solution to > any given occurence. > > It still leaves the port broken from the disappearance of the > previous distfile until the maintainer has time to update the > port. That is likely to be a not-insignificant length of time, > because we cannot reasonably expect port maintainers -- who are > usually volunteers -- to drop everything in order to immediately > fix this sort of problem. It never ceases to amaze me how quick non-maintainers are to volunteer maintainters time to drop everything and rebuild a port. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E46C66B.1040002>