Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:56:42 +0200 From: Thomas Zander <riggs@freebsd.org> To: John Marino <marino@freebsd.org> Cc: Jan Beich <jbeich@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r412296 - head/lang/rust Message-ID: <CAFU734xeq912ir8nJ52xm0GwCYf-G04MNOGbRKBu1Vk94CNgEg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7485ef18e1261c87b17a9c23da01259a@secure.marino.st> References: <201603312004.u2VK4n5n028013@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFU734wN13GQnHuXHQ_sW97v9%2Bq3TSYyZPHiqLTjq5HYwO=SAQ@mail.gmail.com> <7485ef18e1261c87b17a9c23da01259a@secure.marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John, On 1 April 2016 at 10:01, John Marino (FreeBSD) <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: > It's been addressed by portmgr. > You are not expected to test fixes on DragonFly, but at the same time you > aren't supposed to intentionally break existing DF support. I am allowed to > restore builds on DF when updates break them. Of course I would not intentionally break DF support. That would be stupid. > Why would you take offense that Jan is doing a big service for DF? It > doesn't affect you at all or add any new obligations. Please don't twist my words. I did not take offense at Jan (in fact, I started the mail with a compliment regarding his work) and I also did not take offense at anybody doing a service for DF. I said this does not fix a problem with the port, but it does introduce a new feature, and the maintainer should be in the loop before it is committed. Because at the end of the day the maintainer is responsible for supporting a feature and receives the blame if something breaks. > The home of patches are mixed. If the patches have benefits to FreeBSD (say > to support gcc compiler) then they move to ports. If they conflict with > FreeBSD somehow, then they stay in dports. Exactly this is my point: This commit does not a have a benefit to FreeBSD. It adds *only* DF-specifics. Therefore my instincts tell me this should be part of dports, and I would have appreciated this discussion before the commit, not after the fact. That's all. And since the fix-it-blanket is not clear enough in all cases (obviously Jan and me came to different conclusions whether this one is a fix), it would be good to have a word from portmgr whether something like this is part of it or not. Because for sure there are/will be more PRs with a similar intention. Best regards Riggs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFU734xeq912ir8nJ52xm0GwCYf-G04MNOGbRKBu1Vk94CNgEg>