Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:02:04 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: 5.2-BETA and related ports issues Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311291651270.29360-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <xzpr7zqer5u.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > > Do you actually review ports Makefiles? You _are_ kidding here, right? Yes, the ports team does read over the ports Makefile. Yes, the bento cluster attempts to find all the problems that can be found by automated processes. Yes, my own code attempts to lint inconsistencies in the ports collection. Yes, other automated scripts attempt to continually build /usr/ports/INDEX looking for inconsistencies, and maintainers whose email address bounces, and maintainers who might not have seen PRs about their ports (maintainers who are not committers, in this case). Yes,Bill Fenner's script attempts to find all unfetchable ports. I've seen other scripts that attempt to portlint the entire ports hierarchy but I don't know if they run periodically. They probably ought to. There are currently, as of this moment, 9722 ports in the tree. It's not humanly possible to read over every line of every single Makefile plus every single pkg-plist and grok them all. The ports folks rely on many eyes for help with this, just as with every other line of code in FreeBSD. There are certainly a lot of bugs in the ports tree. If people use send-pr for its intended purpose, specific bugs are more likely to get fixed than by casual discussions on mailing lists. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0311291651270.29360-100000>