From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Fri Jul 15 05:50:44 2016 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 91B5DB9987D; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:50:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861AD1F34; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:50:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 84D5F1773; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:50:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:50:44 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Conrad Meyer Cc: Baptiste Daroussin , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r418510 - head/devel/elfutils Message-ID: <20160715055044.GA21041@FreeBSD.org> References: <201607140142.u6E1g9Sp056312@repo.freebsd.org> <20160714084653.quyjmu7g3e4f7d5b@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:50:44 -0000 On Thu, Jul 14, 2016, Conrad Meyer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > Which is exactly why non ports committers are not supposed to commit in > > the ports tree without a ports committer review/approval. > > Sorry. I'm doing my best with the porter's handbook, just like anyone > else. As an src committer you're actually required to have your changes reviewed by active ports committer. PHB does/may not cover all possible use cases, correct practices, and it often lags behind actual `Mk/*' development. (I've made a similar point back in May in reply to r415002, where you did violate the PHB; that reply went unanswered, and the bug is still there.) > Why have a PATCH_DEPENDS distinct from BUILD_DEPENDS? It usually does not matter when building a port locally, but most automated builders would prune the dependencies between stages. This helps to make sure that dependencies are correctly specified (according to their need) as intended, and allows for more granular control of things on per-stage basis. ./danfe