From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Fri Apr 1 07:41:16 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234CFAEB916; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 07:41:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A614C1BC1; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 07:41:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com) Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c62so75839649lfc.1; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:41:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=1AqYV50RtlGBGUkRmDZTRECnklKfxU+38HYv2cGQoXQ=; b=w4WZYNsvsy3Vsc+brsQ9vpGJd/EB/vY9N9rVtLtE8bKb6uWAEiFDi2pA1OFZ2Kg0GJ IHGgWlZ6cJy7sFaHliweTuvRXKdIWSfzSaJXoaalpZOdN/iBrMa9yuOxLNMOlu2nPYtI TzsXN7wWafb/BO3OqX1xhoFAooYvS/aXWrv6rGh4I84IKDSKcYVNtBaF+MwurvmNpzT7 vB0MYS+LRa0D0ZFEXGM8hxmKIzu1rJY3AOlqTs/oW6hO2VjPIlPfiK/8xt8unGRhBUzI 69l0zFDWX3TMVAovuMG/UQqEQ1MBXykildA9eDWg4xf43lkhBWYzB0zwUcUZ+kEDNbUm 9UmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=1AqYV50RtlGBGUkRmDZTRECnklKfxU+38HYv2cGQoXQ=; b=aK+PN3Chq01IaF1+ADTEVqw+9E69RpoKv21ncibweWbt+DhGZakcoXtsRQbUdoePRd R5gu01vjZAwKOQg3DPDPpRvfxTMRDuxCs/A6oYqQhGJrb9uSeFVHldKTkoR3EjdS8S7B /MnPfj+X9z8How0bJs9csbql/gZ36csGpbJnFWD2DDBXfaCr4nm6ah87cNojAp9U2ks5 1eVp+W3h0XEnBOG8efOZWy7zDIIEOOzxXE/042cjmL7Us9WSAw1lpwQASn6Ei0nVTHie tim2NdIsIYNimwIv9aF4YlQOTq4gbG0wYN5PCwkANcTrhlns3lODlHf9p/U7QsnV5zYy DG/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLvH5KQoDjqUY3EZyDxL28s0TmOTzCa+sYnxOSV8TArn9LhVn2qfrL6u/gyoPWPxaZg/FBvCH2rHiDJCg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.19.99 with SMTP id j96mr1243783lfi.114.1459496473954; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com Received: by 10.25.213.65 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:41:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201603312004.u2VK4n5n028013@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201603312004.u2VK4n5n028013@repo.freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:41:13 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qk6xJ3qxiDEpsIRr42NfvVF964k Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r412296 - head/lang/rust From: Thomas Zander To: Jan Beich Cc: "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 07:41:16 -0000 Hi Jan, On 31 March 2016 at 22:04, Jan Beich wrote: > Author: jbeich > Log: > lang/rust: unblock DragonFly build While in general I am fine with your commits and your high quality work, I am not happy at all about the implications in this case. I don't use DF at the moment, but now we have bits in the port very specific to DF. This is still "FreeBSD ports" and not "FreeBSD-and-DF-or-something-else" ports. I will not install a machine just for the sole purpose of ensuring that rust runs on DF. It's actually their job to do that, that's why they have specific DF patches. But now that it is in our official tree, you have enforced a responsibility upon me to ensure that my next commit won't break the build on DF, and I won't be able to verify that. > Approved by: portmgr "just fix it" blanket On this I heavily disagree. The port works on all officially supported platforms. It is not broken, so it does not need fixing. You introduced a new feature, namely adding extra bits to support a non-FreeBSD platform. You should have discussed this with me first. Maybe portmgr can comment on this to make it more clear: - Are we obliged to ensure ports are working on DF? - Is a commit like this covered by a "just fix it" blanket? (By the way, where is the "just fix it" blanket documented? I did not find a recent mail and https://wiki.freebsd.org/ports-secteam#Blanket_Approval for sure does not cover this commit.) Best regards Riggs