Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 11:59:53 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 200922] comms/hylafax receiving faxs not working Message-ID: <bug-200922-13-YsmYBRf4Ak@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-200922-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-200922-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D200922 --- Comment #6 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- One is suspicious, two leans towards confirming. What's "dumb" is the maintainer of the port IGNORING both complaints with no response at all. The second report even includes a specific assertion, it's not "vague" at a= ll.=20 Did you analyze it? These "two year old" reports are still valid because the version of hylaxfax hasn't changed since June 2012. This platform is FreeBSD 10. Have you *any* analysis on this at all? It seems to me this is a case of "works for me therefore your reports are invalid" The demanding tone isn't helping. Ignoring bug reports are the basis of "maintainer timeouts" which is how we determine the port really isn't maintained at all. Even if you don't know the fix, as a maintainer you're expected to respond to PRs, otherwise how does anybody know that you saw th= em, have analyzed them, and made a conclusion on them? pimshka, rich: Is it possible for you guys to re-test this and see if it is still happening on your setups?=20=20 Dave, do you use "faxgetty ttyIAX9" command? maybe that one in particular = is broken and you haven't hit it yet. It just seems possible you are dismissi= ng potentially real issues because you haven't hit them yet. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-200922-13-YsmYBRf4Ak>