From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 17 00:47:20 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361A5106566C; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:47:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 65-241-43-4.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BF914EBF9; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E223112.9050204@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:47:14 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110706 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <20110716212640.GA13201@lonesome.com> <20110717003551.GA17969@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20110717003551.GA17969@lonesome.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Rees , ports@freebsd.org, perl@freebsd.org, skv@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: change to bsd.perl.mk X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:47:20 -0000 On 07/16/2011 17:35, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: >> If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs? >> >> Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I missed >> something? > > In a perfect world we'd have -exp runs for everything, I suppose. OTOH > here in the real world there's plenty of lower-risk changes that can be > done without. If in doubt, we can always do one. > > Take a look a the various commits in ports/Mk for examples of what's > been done in the past. A) If the file is unconditionally included the idea of administrative separation is false security. There is no reason that the appropriate perl folks can't have permission to twiddle that stuff in bpm. B) Focusing on this part of the problem detracts from the more important point that the thing should be conditionally included, and that whatever needs to be fixed to make that happen should be fixed. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/