From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Aug 20 04:57:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA17253 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 04:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hwcn.org (main.hwcn.org [199.212.94.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA17247 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 04:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hwcn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24435; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA20092; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:58:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca: ac199 owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:58:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: ac199@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca To: itojun@itojun.org cc: Satoshi Asami , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/4326 In-Reply-To: <6224.872066374@itojun.csl.sony.co.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 itojun@itojun.org wrote: > >waste our time because he can't be bothered to read the instructions > >(it has been stated over and over that you need to update some stuff > >if you are going to run the latest ports on a release system) or at > >least take a look at the Makefile in question before submitting a > >bogus PR. > > anyway, there should be a way to prevent bogus PRs. > > how about one of the followings: > - timestamping (already rejected yesterday, I remember) That was a fairly simplistic and not-thought-out timestamping suggestion. Whoever suggested it should learn to think through his/her ideas before wasting everyone's time with them. A better timestamping system would compare RCS strings, but the general problem is that there's no way to catch the case where a port upgraded but bsd.port.mk isn't touched. If one is willing to let this case slide, then it could work... After that, an automated numbering system that updates each port's pkg/OLDEST_WORKING_MK everytime bsd.port.mk is changed is probably the next solution. Ugh. Yuck. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk