From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 24 23:35:43 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDB01065672 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:35:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: from mail-pw0-f68.google.com (mail-pw0-f68.google.com [209.85.160.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B810A8FC0C for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:35:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbdy10 with SMTP id y10so396320pbd.7 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:35:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.75.11 with SMTP id y11mr35044996pbv.51.1327448141580; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:35:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mikmeyer-vm-fedora (dhcp-173-37-11-196.cisco.com. [173.37.11.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 1sm1530053pbn.16.2012.01.24.15.35.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:35:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:35:38 -0800 From: Mike Meyer To: vermaden Message-ID: <20120124153538.60bc7707@mikmeyer-vm-fedora> In-Reply-To: References: <20120122054903.GB12469@lonesome.com> <20120124212347.GB3528@lonesome.com> Organization: Meyer Consulting X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.7; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:35:43 -0000 On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:05:55 +0100 vermaden wrote: > > > I have now filled these PR's here: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=164432 > > Thanks. This makes these issues visible. > One of them is already closed ... with ZERO changes, > the reason from the person that closed it: > "This is intended, as vsftpd is started by inetd" > ... great, but not ALL FreeBSD users want to use inetd, > why force them to compile it, is that one file that big > or painful that it can not be added to the port? I don't know why the PR was closed this way, but given that the bug report is simply a statement of a fact, without saying why you consider this fact to be a bug, or any other justification for wanting the change, closing it as "works as intended" seems like a perfectly reasonable response. If you had explained *why* you wanted that changed, and provide some justification for doing so (i.e. - point out that no inetd compliant program, so the default config of the port won't run on the default config of FreeBSD), you might have gotten a different response. Of course, that kind of discussion isn't really appropriate for a PR, since it's really a feature request. As such it deserves a bit of work finding out why it's that way to begin with. All of is covered in the problem-reports document already mentioned in this thread: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/