Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:47:14 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org, perl@freebsd.org, skv@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: change to bsd.perl.mk Message-ID: <4E223112.9050204@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110717003551.GA17969@lonesome.com> References: <20110716212640.GA13201@lonesome.com> <CADLo839-NeBEcYwcGN%2BabuFxbUk%2BzFwBQ7dUNymh4_BFNkS-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo839j3akUhvVrr2Mb0gvCDNDL7U-pgbFx4WQzX9-4xW6DYw@mail.gmail.com> <20110717003551.GA17969@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E223112.9050204>