Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:11:17 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> To: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> Cc: marino@freebsd.org, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422505 - head/archivers/snappy-java Message-ID: <20160921211117.54166e17@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <3a8164b8-e15d-b955-05fc-3d817d1168d7@marino.st> References: <201609201519.u8KFJrTF059560@repo.freebsd.org> <ec547bd4-0930-f39c-7a36-6462c7ad4517@FreeBSD.org> <3bbaf8af-e9d0-9fce-b103-2055bdce8e18@marino.st> <1db2352b-f6b6-ba58-d18d-7d1eac5c4c0f@FreeBSD.org> <202c3516-4c9e-971f-eddc-e3eb904f1ff7@marino.st> <92a0385e-13ac-0a43-4761-103ffa2e9961@FreeBSD.org> <9f4ce30a-70a4-f668-50e0-a35be78b5032@marino.st> <1b891572-9be2-f658-2942-42f5f6168c3d@FreeBSD.org> <3a8164b8-e15d-b955-05fc-3d817d1168d7@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:11:51 -0500 John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> = wrote: > On 9/21/2016 09:05, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >> Le 21/09/2016 =C3=A0 15:56, John Marino a =C3=A9crit : =20 >>> Maybe it's time for portmgr to research this and publish a list of >>> forbidden upstreams if they find it really is a cache and find they >>> really don't want it. =20 >> >> No. Like I already told you on another subject, we are not a law firm. >> We are not turning the Porter's Handbook into a 35k pages and 42 annexes >> ISO9000 monstruosity. >> You have to use common sense. >> A cache is a cache, and it is not suitable as an upstream. >=20 > It's not about law, it's about rules and procedure. > I come from an operational environment where everything is CONCISELY=20 > documented (the handbook is not so different). Currently, what I did is= =20 > allowed by the rules and IMO it's not underhanded at all. It was done=20 > with the best of intentions. >=20 > You, as portmgr, have no right at all to either accuse me of being=20 > underhanded or getting angry about my legitimate solution which, IMO,=20 > makes perfect sense. If the criteria is common sense, I met that=20 > criteria with flying colors and you've got no standing other than your=20 > own "common" sense that I'm wrong. >=20 > Stop slighting the legal profession. This is something that requires=20 > more guidelines than is available, and as a member of both documentation= =20 > and portmgr, you have the ability to improve it. I would say using Fedora's cache is leeching and not very nice. On the other hand I wouldn't have marked the ports broken. Use of our distcache for 14 days should be acceptable. After that you can mark it broken. I also think that broken ports shouldn't be fixed until a user shows up and we know somebody actually cares. Spending committer time and build time on something nobody uses is a waste.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160921211117.54166e17>