From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 13 12:20:08 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC31416A41F for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:20:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C56343D55 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:20:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBDCK8K7072537 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jBDCK8s4072536; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:20:08 GMT Message-Id: <200512131220.jBDCK8s4072536@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Lars Eggert Cc: Subject: Re: ports/90312: [patch] www/mod_perl2: added support for www/apache22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Lars Eggert List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:20:08 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/90312; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Lars Eggert To: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=8Aimun_Mikecin?= Cc: Subject: Re: ports/90312: [patch] www/mod_perl2: added support for www/apache22 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:13:23 +0100 On Dec 13, 2005, at 12:51, =8Aimun Mikecin wrote: > Just like the maintainership of the port does not mean you will =20 > *always* > take care of bugfixing, updating and resolving problems, I cannot be a > tester whenever you make a change. Port maintanership is based on =20 > doing > it on best-effort basis as time permits, so is my help with testing. > Nobody is paid to do it. I am well aware of what port maintainership entails. > Beside maintaining a few ports, I do testing > for other maintainers in the environment they cant do the testing > themself. It is usually testing on different hardware or different > architecture. Hence my question if you were wiling to do the same for mod_perl2. =20 Apparently, you aren't, which is fine of course. > It would be a very bad thing for them to have an attitude > to refuse to support other architectures just because they can test it > only on (for example) i386. I'm not refusing anything. I'm pointing out that adding support for =20 configurations I can't test may create problems, because people will =20 expect those configurations to work when I cannot test them. I'm open for constructive suggestions on how to deal with this. One =20 way would be someone that can test these configurations and provide =20 feedback. Another - worse - way is to temporarily disable those =20 configurations, to avoid violating POLA ("well, it compiled, so it =20 must run correctly, too"). Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories