From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 10 20:33:39 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C211065675; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:33:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CFF48FC14; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1RDMXa-00079I-Ef>; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:33:38 +0200 Received: from e178037012.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.37.12] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1RDMXa-00027J-BM>; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:33:38 +0200 Message-ID: <4E9356A1.9000503@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:33:37 +0200 From: "Hartmann, O." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111003 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Sedov References: <20111007230336.GB3051@laptop.levsha.me> <20111007164411.554ac9c0.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20111010120419.9cfee3e9.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111010120419.9cfee3e9.stas@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 85.178.37.12 Cc: current@freebsd.org, Chris Rees , "portmgr@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: ports on 10.0-CURRENT: r226027 is incorrect fix X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:33:39 -0000 On 10/10/11 21:04, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 18:35:13 +0100 > Chris Rees mentioned: > >> Last I heard, portmgr explicitly disapproved of this fix-- have I missed >> something??? Erwin specifically said not to do it. >> >> Since when can anyone just commit stuff to bsd.port.mk, regardless of its >> location? >> >> This is a bad solution, please revert it or I will when I get back. We're >> going to end up being asked to support it on ports@ otherwise. >> > You certianly missed something, including the rationale behind the portmgr@ > descision of not committing to the ports tree (!) bsd.port.mk. Go find > some useful work to do like deleting old ports or whatever. You might want > to consider deleting all mine ports, as I'm not going to support them anymore > (after you backed out this fix without approval I don't have a working ports > tree anymore on any of my 3 workstations). > Hello? Is there need for this barbarian rude tone? Regards, oh