Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:11:20 +0200 From: "John Marino (FreeBSD)" <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Thomas Zander <riggs@freebsd.org> Cc: John Marino <marino@freebsd.org>, Jan Beich <jbeich@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com Subject: Re: svn commit: r412296 - head/lang/rust Message-ID: <1d06dfb14f40d98439d2f1f759375ada@secure.marino.st> In-Reply-To: <CAFU734xeq912ir8nJ52xm0GwCYf-G04MNOGbRKBu1Vk94CNgEg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201603312004.u2VK4n5n028013@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFU734wN13GQnHuXHQ_sW97v9%2Bq3TSYyZPHiqLTjq5HYwO=SAQ@mail.gmail.com> <7485ef18e1261c87b17a9c23da01259a@secure.marino.st> <CAFU734xeq912ir8nJ52xm0GwCYf-G04MNOGbRKBu1Vk94CNgEg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-04-01 10:56, Thomas Zander wrote: > 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. What new feature? It just fixes DF support. In fact, Rust has been better supported on DragonFly for a long time. There was a dragonfly-only port (contained in dports) created because the freebsd ports version was so far behind. The fixes from that port actually came back to FreeBSD. This is what your message is losing. The implication is that DF brings no benefit to ports but that's simply not the case. The price for these benefits are a couple of no-op lines in the makefiles, which is a great deal for FreeBSD. > 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. First, the point is wrong, even on this specific port, FreeBSD has definitely benefitted from DF participation. Secondly, if ports are split unnecessary, everyone is unaware of the impact of changes. It's not like the dports patches are visible. The split patches was for conflict, not DF-specifics. Thirdly, this version of rust built before, so restoring the build is under a standard blanket. The main directives are DF support is not supposed to increase obligations on maintainers, and I'm not allowed to "demand" a maintainer support DF. Jan's commit did not increase the obligation to the maintainer, he only fixed a port that previously built, which is definitely appreciated. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1d06dfb14f40d98439d2f1f759375ada>