Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:02:55 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Dirk Meyer <dirk.meyer@dinoex.sub.org>, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Valid Sender ? - Re: cvs commit: ports/security/openssl Makefile Message-ID: <20051005150255.GA86984@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <4343B074.8010100@FreeBSD.org> References: <200510040735.j947Z8rb069549@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051004144319.GA71102@xor.obsecurity.org> <8AYfVTn/WV@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> <20051004174511.GA22748@xor.obsecurity.org> <1V%2BRzjn/WV@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> <20051004210427.GA55575@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20051004220556.GB64574@xor.obsecurity.org> <EydzDS5Ass@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> <20051005071815.GC23757@soaustin.net> <4343B074.8010100@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:52:36AM -0400, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Mark Linimon wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 07:12:47AM +0200, Dirk Meyer wrote: > >>Problems found: > >>a module of security/cyrus-sasl2 did not include "md5.h" > >>comms/kermit had an conflicting macro definition. > > > >Then it doesn't meet the test of 'does not effect other dependent packages' > >which is what we keep trying to tell people is what we want the criterion > >to be. > > But if he'd first made a commit to security/cyrus-sasl2 saying "be sure > to include md5.h", and then a commit to comms/kermit saying "correct > conflicting macro definition", and then updated openssl, there would be > no complaints. Just playing devil's advocate here (note: dinoex, don't > read anything into that ::P). > > This is the same problem we see every single slush. Can portmgr please > produce an explicit set of rules for port slushes? I know that the > automatic response is "no sweeping changes," but it's pretty apparent > that that means different things to different people. I know that it's > tricky to define, but doing so would save everybody grief in the long run. Yeah, I think we need to spell this out in considerably more detail :-( Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDQ+sfWry0BWjoQKURAivGAKClWLyzQ3JDAQPQsT2d/cR+9fJVZACg2qOH DhH6hy51PpjVHvgH8h5mYY8= =r919 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051005150255.GA86984>