From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Wed Sep 21 19:12:32 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26ED2BE2032; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:12:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tijl@freebsd.org) Received: from mailrelay112.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay112.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.20.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "relay.skynet.be", Issuer "GlobalSign Organization Validation CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3A191129; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:12:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tijl@freebsd.org) X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2CvCQB22uJX/9SdgG1eGwEBAQMBAQEJA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBgzsBAQEBAR5JgQq6e4YeAoFlPRABAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4RiAQEEIzMjEAsOCgI?= =?us-ascii?q?CBSECAg8qHgYTG4g0r0KMUAEBAQEGAQEBASOBBokAgQWERIMEgloFmXWPWHGPB?= =?us-ascii?q?Yxng3w1H4MZHIFSPDSGRQEBAQ?= Received: from 212.157-128-109.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([109.128.157.212]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2016 21:11:18 +0200 Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org [127.0.0.1]) by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u8LJBHck026305; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:11:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from tijl@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:11:17 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans To: John Marino Cc: marino@freebsd.org, Mathieu Arnold , 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> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:12:32 -0000 On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:11:51 -0500 John Marino = 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.