Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:30:47 -0400 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to handle upgrade of libnotify when cups-client-1.4.8 is marked as broken Message-ID: <20110828193046.GA668@magic.hamla.org> In-Reply-To: <20110828152234.54cc9fac@seibercom.net> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <20058.20743.791783.342355@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <BLU0-SMTP182102B9C96837517ECB6BB93150@phx.gbl> <20110828172651.GB277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828173059.GT17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828181356.GD277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828183300.GX17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828184542.GE277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828152234.54cc9fac@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 15:22:34 -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:45:42 -0400 > Sahil Tandon articulated: > > > I am sorry users have had to "intervene" in managing their systems, > > but rather than removing the option entirely, I prefer mandree@'s more > > structural suggestion of re-prompting the user when defaults change. > > In the meantime, a note in UPDATING about explicitly disabling the > > GNUTLS option for cups ports is probably appropriate. I have copied > > the maintainer in hopes that he will consider it. > > Sahil, I think you are being a little to flippant regrading this > problem. I do not mean to be flippant, so if that is how my message came across, I am sorry. > Obviously any end user is responsible for maintaining his/her system. > It is apparently that FreeBSD does not test updates as rigorously as > other OSs might. Therefore, when the problem was first discovered in > regards to "cups" and "GNUTLS" it is obviously that the end user would > have to manually correct the problem. Yes, a bit of manual intervention may be required, and for this inconvenience there should have been something in UPDATING. > However, this is no longer day 0. The particulars of this case are > well know. IMHO, a notice should have been inserted into the UPDATING > file immediately -- in other words as soon as the phenomena was > confirmed. To allow the port to be shipped with a known problem > borders on criminal. At the very lest, it displays gross indifference > to the users of FreeBSD. Criminal? Indifference? This sort of troll-ish hyperbole is decidedly unhelpful. I do agree that a note in UPDATING is appropriate. > Nothing here is specifically blaming your for this problem. It takes > more than one individual to screw things up this thoroughly. However, > it takes only one person with a set of balls to get a solution > implemented. The fact that you are actually going to wait for the > maintainer the port in question to give his permission for you to > issue a warning and hopefully a fix for this problem is pathetic. Ah, more trolling. > Seriously, and I don't mean any disrespect, but what government agency > do you work for? :) I don't work for a government agency, but cute attempt. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110828193046.GA668>