Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:38:58 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Johannes Jost Meixner <xmj@FreeBSD.org>, Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r377721 - in head/devel/newfile: . files Message-ID: <20150204143858.GA96898@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54C5BBB7.9070808@FreeBSD.org> References: <201501231039.t0NAdYS5095664@svn.freebsd.org> <20150123110243.GA64051@FreeBSD.org> <54C234F6.4070805@FreeBSD.org> <20150123122120.GA91455@FreeBSD.org> <54C3583E.1070205@FreeBSD.org> <20150124140220.GF67556@e-new.0x20.net> <20150125180426.GA11307@FreeBSD.org> <54C5BBB7.9070808@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kubilay, I've just realized that I didn't reply to this; please accept my apologies (esp. given that I often myself complain about our bad communications). On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:59:51PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 26/01/2015 5:04 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Right, but not only that. I've mentioned that it had bitten us in the > > past and digged these two commits: > > > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=288024 > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=288046 > > > > One could argue if we should still care about defunct [these things], > > but IMHO they all illustrate fragility of dotted directories quite > > clearly already. > > > > [...] Then again -- they are ugly; as Lars had mentioned, dots could > > be expected to be used exclusively in versions; etc. -- better avoid > > to this mess once and for all. I'll probably cook up a patch to PHB > > on this matter. > > I'm -1 on exception cases in general, and in this case in particular as > it prevented us (Python) from improving consistency among a large set of > ports. Fair enough. > Beyond that, the broken tool argument suggests only exactly that, broken > tools. It is the same argument to suggest that a broken HTTP parsing > library used in a client for example, ought to be supported by coupling > it to some arbitrary convention in response headers from our package > servers. This of course is ridiculous. I find this example somewhat bogus, so I cannot agree or disagree with it. > The argument to aesthetics may be valid, but it is weak. It does does > not warrant trumping convention/consistency of a third party software > library (the ports framework) for third party software that we do not > get a say in choosing the naming convention for. Again, fair enough. > Our job is to support the growth of a ported software framework, nothing > more. I'll get a bit verbose here, if you excuse me. :) Unfortunate fact is that most people do not know how to write (develop, maintain, ship) software. Yes, that includes software authors themselves. Now, we ports people of FreeBSD presumably know. So when it does not cost us *too* much, we should attempt (IMHO) to correct upstream mistakes and stupidity, not adhere to it. Hence I've spoken up. The reasons you've provided in this email are valid enough to be considered and respected, so I think it pretty much nails it: those fucking dots can stay. :( This does not mean that I no longer think that those people do not know how to write (develop, maintain, ship) software, and/or giving up, but I agree that FreeBSD Ports Collection is probably not the right battlefield in this particular case. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150204143858.GA96898>