From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 7 09:49:05 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6431A16A411; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:49:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nat-application.b1.lan.prg.vol.cz (nat-application.b1.lan.prg.vol.cz [195.122.204.152]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E090413C4A8; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:49:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pav.hide.vol.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nat-application.b1.lan.prg.vol.cz (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l179n29E042227; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:49:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from pav@localhost) by pav.hide.vol.cz (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l179n1I9042226; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:49:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: pav.hide.vol.cz: pav set sender to pav@FreeBSD.org using -f From: Pav Lucistnik To: Ade Lovett In-Reply-To: <0DCCBBC3-C066-47D5-8D59-2996EB978ED2@FreeBSD.org> References: <200702070823.l178NWMZ038730@freefall.freebsd.org> <45C99112.4080201@icyb.net.ua> <0DCCBBC3-C066-47D5-8D59-2996EB978ED2@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:49:01 +0100 Message-Id: <1170841741.41102.17.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Cc: Andriy Gapon , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/104271: devel/kdbg: fails to open core file X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pav@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:49:05 -0000 Yeah, Ade basically said it all. I agree with everything he wrote. > > What kind of feedback did you expect ? Is a problem for which there > > are > > no patches [yet] not a problem anymore ? Doesn't mere existence of a > > real and acknowledged problem warrant an open PR ? That would be true for PR about the bug in FreeBSD itself, like kernel or userland. It would be true for documentation. It would be true for ports infrastructure. But for third-party software in ports, we simply can't track every bug in vendor code here. The problem, unless it's specific to FreeBSD _port_, must be addressed directly with the upstream vendor. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings, I kinda expected it would. But this PR was basically stuck, with no one commenting on it in two months. I'm not claiming your problem is non-existant or non-important. If there ever is a new development here, I'll be happy to re-open and handle the PR. You can still send follow-ups on it, they will reach me. -- Pav Lucistnik The number you dialed is imaginary. Please turn your phone by 90 degrees and try again.