Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:13:11 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@freebsd.org> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: jim@reptiles.org, itojun@itojun.org, committers@freebsd.org, hylafax@freebsd.org, gj@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/comms/hylafax Message-ID: <199706122013.WAA00743@desk.jhs.no_domain> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jun 1997 18:25:37 PDT." <199706060125.SAA29193@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Reference:
> From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-id: <199706060125.SAA29193@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
Hi,
Satoshi Asami wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Now for hylafax. It falls into none of the above special cases. It
> is an "oddball" port that requires me to take special action while
> building packages (it uses bash as shell,
I see
RUN_DEPENDS= bash:${PORTSDIR}/shells/bash gs:${PORTSDIR}/print/ghostscript
in the CD-ROM port/comms/hylafax/Makefile
> and chokes on my cd/rm
> exported functions so I need to stop and unset those),
No idea what you mean, you can discuss it with
the V4 hylafax port maintainer, if it's appropriate.
> so having one
> more hylafax port means a lot more work for me whenever I build the
> packages (which happen about once a month -- it is now necessary with
> -current moving so fast and many things breaking left and right).
Solution is to leave both V3 & V4 hylafax in ports/comms/ for now,
but add to the V3 Makefile, this:
BROKEN=YES # ports/comms/hylafax3 will be removed later, when
# ports/comms/hylafax4 has enough success reports posted on
# <hylafax@freebsd.org> so please use hylafax4.
> Also, the new version (4.0 release, not beta) has come out in August
> of 1996. That is 10 months ago. The upgrade has been long overdue, I
> have asked several people who mentioned that they "got 4.0 working at
> home" to make a port, until finally itojun (three cheers to him!) came
> up with one. Since this particular port was first mentioned in a
> Japanese mailing list, we had some people test it there, and I
> committed the port after about a few weeks of "ok" reports and no
> "doesn't work" reports.
A great pity you didn't let the non japanese speakers know what was happening,
if you'd dropped me the maintainer a note, I'd have cc'd <hylafax@freebsd.org>,
& we'd have had some non Japanese speaking people also do some acceptance
tests of the the V4 port.
> Besides, the author has deleted the ver 3 tarball from his own site.
> I would trust his judgement more than anyone else's.
You're not called to make that judgement !
Leave it to the users & programmers that have expressed an interest
in hylafax, & are subscribed to <hylafax@freebsd.org>.
> * put plainly, i'm sure many of us appreciate the efforts put into maintaini
> ng
> * the ports collection, but let's not get into pissing contests over who has
> * control. then we all suffer.
>
> Amen. The "correct" procedure to deal with this was probably for me
> to strip the MAINTAINER=jhs line for neglecting to upgrade the port
> for so long, and then commit the new port, but what difference does
> that make?
If you'd had the sense or politeness to tell me what was happening,
I'd have relayed it to <hylafax@freebsd.org>, then we'd have _all_
been in the picture, not just some linguistic minority.
> I didn't want to publically embarrass/accuse Mr. Stacey by making it
> an issue, and indeed thought I was doing him a favor
Bollocks (English) (translation: Balls (American)) I don't believe you !
Do the interested people on <hylafax@freebsd.org> a _real_ favour,
leave both hylafax V3 & v4 ports in comms/ till _they_, (not you or I)
decide V4 is sufficiently tested that we can delete V3.
> by giving him a
> chance to silently watch from the sidelines while people do the work
> that he was expected to (and if you take a diff of the committed
> pkg/PLIST with the submitted version, you can see that *I* also did a
> lot of work to make it package correctly, one thing the old port never
> did). I guess that didn't work very well.
If you _must_ drag up old history to paint yourself in glowing colours ...
Yes you did work with the package list, but you also blocked the
hylafax port till you'd forced your personal taste in pkg/.
Back then lots of other ports didnt have pkg lists either, but you were
hell bent on forcing pkg/ ASAP, even where my time as Maintainer would
have been better spent getting a port properly _config'd_ (run time,
not just your limited interest with make & pkg criteria).
I wanted to get a hylafax that had all the interfaces tested & was usable
(not merely compilable), once a few source level users had taken my port,
& reported back, I _then_ intended to do pkg_list & other changes,
but you insisted on diverting energy to pkg/ stuff.
I did tell you it was best of as a source only port for a while,
but you ignored me.
As you have the whip hand on ports/, & kept obstructing my ports work,
I eventually got tired of the obsessive interest, & gave up contributing.
I presume that was to our mutual pleasure, it was certainly to my relief,
but I haven't got the bare faced audacity to claim I did it as a favour
to a protagonist ;-))
> Satoshi
Conclusion:
Mr Satoshi Asami should leave both V3 & V4 hylafax in ports/comms/
& leave the decision of when V3 is no longer necessary, to the subscribed
users & programmers on <hylafax@freebsd.org>
Julian
--
Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706122013.WAA00743>