Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:34:38 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r402813 - head/misc/astrolog Message-ID: <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org> References: <201512020629.tB26TbDb060296@repo.freebsd.org> <565E9DFA.6050502@marino.st> <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?565EAD1E.8080805>