Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:14:54 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/diskcheckd needs fixing and a maintainer Message-ID: <4E4CBBEE.4040302@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-MXGLOQexp9woAeSmKvC8rBobM49pidTBC7-eXTwoCZA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADLo83-kEaQyFOiR45WmYdOru8vqu-MhAgb9p=OhjOo-TVUwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <201108171436.p7HEaNYQ071778@fire.js.berklix.net> <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com> <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <CADLo83-MXGLOQexp9woAeSmKvC8rBobM49pidTBC7-eXTwoCZA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 18.08.2011 08:20, schrieb Chris Rees: > On 18 August 2011 09:03, <perryh@pluto.rain.com> wrote: >> Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> We don't want to provide broken software. >> >> Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: >> >>> ... it's obsolete, broken, junk ... >> >> Unless there is more to this than is reported in those two PRs, >> I'd call it a considerable exaggeration to describe diskcheckd >> as "broken". >> >> * http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/115853 >> is shown as "closed", so presumably is no longer a problem. > > Wow, would it have been too difficult to actually READ the closing > message from Jeremy? I suggest you look again -- I've pasted it here > so you can see it. > > "The problem here is that the code does not do what the manpage says (or > vice-versa). The 3rd column does not specify frequency of checking, but > rather, over what duration of time to spread a single disk scan over. > Thus, 7 days would mean "spread the entire disk check at X rate over the > course of 7 days". There is still a bug in the code where large disks > will cause problems resulting in updateproctitle() never getting called, > and so on, but that's unrelated to this PR. I'm closing the PR because > trying to fix all of this should really be ben@'s responsibility. > (Sorry for sounding harsh.)" > > How does that indicate it's fixed? It's an 'abandoned' PR. This would be a case for marking it suspended (or possibly analyzed, depending on which of these two fits best), rather than closing it. The status is also a statement... > Thank you for testing and investigating, this is what the port has > needed, and two days of being deprecated has achieved more than 18 > months of a PR being open. So the bottom line for this case is, we sometimes only get sufficient attention through deprecating ports. Unfortunately that approach might wear off some day. Too bad. :-( Do we need a "think twice before adding a port" habit?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E4CBBEE.4040302>