From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Dec 2 08:54:15 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@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 157C0A34A81 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:54:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailing-machine@vniz.net) Received: from mail-lf0-f46.google.com (mail-lf0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B846E1106 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:54:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailing-machine@vniz.net) Received: by lfaz4 with SMTP id z4so41626831lfa.0 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:54:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HVqJSO1wOT76Z6PPExbEOcPPTnSnISpr79Kw3tkGrCU=; b=W1v35kLutlYFqLTn4lupXaHkgdimgq6aXQsBC0hhDjsWj7w9Qy/fdz/u/JVb5Ah3YD bVwF+uEmasiKi74oxHmDW2vk1F+k5m7uiNT4Pn5cUxBuCkHVKZNcaFI2fEbBQng7J9OF 5cpk9sSzRUYvEsNEq+lORAP6l6XPABT9vvovJGmO9tLinzDLgPzVjInRWgRQ9pDR8O84 ed4gfaModV+e0Z1Fmv+4AfSSyuGT4I8Ic0+Sct7YDPcIYqVGIR6XJJX9XJDv6q77o+0r ftcvW/Ak3zg2fGBuS9V6RbBM9IJFyrloDsgs+1PJhpRbjgaHFVvXO5yiwfuyZvgk2X+n OGOA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkE2H/1yv8zSCsadKappxF0oevZcV019Sio76Zl+05oQ7xVjDE2iWF4XbVJqiNY/B3Lo1oh X-Received: by 10.112.170.7 with SMTP id ai7mr1335008lbc.102.1449046446770; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:54:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([89.169.173.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w132sm299440lfd.11.2015.12.02.00.54.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r402813 - head/misc/astrolog To: marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org References: <201512020629.tB26TbDb060296@repo.freebsd.org> <565E9DFA.6050502@marino.st> <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org> <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> From: Andrey Chernov Message-ID: <565EB1AC.4000508@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:54:04 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:54:15 -0000 On 02.12.2015 11:34, John Marino wrote: > On 12/2/2015 9:26 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> On 02.12.2015 10:30, John Marino wrote: >>> On 12/2/2015 7:29 AM, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: >>>> Author: ache >>>> Date: Wed Dec 2 06:29:36 2015 >>>> New Revision: 402813 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/402813 >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> Unbreak port, update to the latest version of Swiss Ephemeris >>>> (It does not require any patching, who mark the port BROKEN >>>> can easily do it by yourself) >>> >>> This is an unfair comment. >>> The *distfile* changed. That implies a poudriere run. >>> THe person marking BROKEN often does it in a batch of a several ports >>> that have starting failing in a bulk run. They aren't looking at *any* >>> of them and rely on the maintainer or a user that cares to figure out >>> what happened. >>> >>> In this case, it's as much work as you can ask without having to >>> generate patches, so I don't agree with the second half of the comment >>> AT ALL. >>> >> >> Well, this procedure makes unmaintained ports (like this one) doomed to >> die even on slightest change (distfile moving to other site etc). >> According to commit log I am a user that cares to figure out (and I >> don't want to be maintainer), but the person who marks is BROKEN is not >> bothered to investigate. > > And? > There are two roles here: > 1) Marking the port broken > 2) Unbreaking the port. > > You are implying the person that does role #1 is obligated to do role > #2, even if he/she is in the process of marking 40 ports broken. > > In the best case, even if role #1 is only breaking 1 port, why do you > think they are obligated to anything other than the trivial fix. > IMO ports@freeBSD.org means "unmaintained", not "collectively maintained > though obligation". I know others believe in the latter, but I have > plently of agreement with the former. > > The two roles are not connected and role #1 has no obligation to role #2. > > John > 3) Contact the person who does most commits to this port. I don't say anything about obligation, only about possibility based on good intention. Nobody _must_ do it but can. IMHO ports@freebsd.org means "collectively maintained" (without any obligation, but with good intentions). There is no reason to put e-mail address in this field otherwise, just the word "unmaintained" which clearly indicates no contacts. BTW, maintained ports for me is worse thing. I can quickly fix any unmaintained port, but for maintained one I need to wait 2 weeks timeout and by my personal stats only ~20% maintainers reply. Either their emails are dead or they just ignore requests. We even don't have any automation to collect and remove dead maintainer addresses in regular basis. -- http://ache.vniz.net/