Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:42:27 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: mandree@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/diskcheckd needs fixing and a maintainer Message-ID: <CADLo838fUCCr6Vm_D3BW6m6JtLnvDBicGTFp6kx2ZSQd_7dJBA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4e4f3c65.SWjpvhhzZjBepdJu%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <CADLo83-kEaQyFOiR45WmYdOru8vqu-MhAgb9p=OhjOo-TVUwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <201108171436.p7HEaNYQ071778@fire.js.berklix.net> <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com> <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <CADLo83-MXGLOQexp9woAeSmKvC8rBobM49pidTBC7-eXTwoCZA@mail.gmail.com> <4E4CBBEE.4040302@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-fu_B1S0Lcnypdhy%2BSe-stdmyBFVwHEinmyenBsLOfHQ@mail.gmail.com> <4e4f3c65.SWjpvhhzZjBepdJu%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 August 2011 05:47, <perryh@pluto.rain.com> wrote: >=A0I've been running it for a little less than > two days now, on a drive which contains a gmirror, and have yet > to see it misbehave. =A0(The HDD indicator does stay on, but this is > not surprising given that, as noted above, diskcheckd is expected > to run continuously.) Thank you very much for taking the time to investigate. >> > Do we need a "think twice before adding a port" habit? >> >> Yes. Of course, these aren't pointless ports however; while >> still developed and maintained they were once useful. > > IIUC, diskcheckd started out in base and was later moved to ports > (for reasons that are not obvious). =A0I can't see that it is any > less useful now than when first developed, or when moved from base > to ports. > >> It's time to go when they break and bitrot. > > For some definition of "break and bitrot." =A0Again, I haven't > seen any actual breakage. =A0diskcheckd could use a little tweaking, > e.g. diskcheckd.conf.sample contains a stale reference to "the > diskcheckd.conf(5) manual page" which was presumably missed when > diskcheckd was moved to ports; it should now be "the diskcheckd(8) > manual page". > > BTW how does one go about fixing a FreeBSD-native port like this? > Since we are the upstream, it would make more sense to revise the > distfile than to add a patch in the port. =A0I didn't find any mention > of this in the Porter's Handbook. > This is an unusual case where the sources are kept in the files/ subdir of the port's directory-- nowadays we'd put it in a separate distfile. However, for this case please feel free to submit a diff to the sources there and they can stay as long as the port remains useful. If you can't reproduce the problem I'll ask the submitter of ports/143566 if he still can. Is it logging to syslog? Also, would you be happy to take maintainership of this port? Chris --=20 Chris Rees =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| FreeBSD Developer crees@FreeBSD.org =A0 | http://people.freebsd.org/~crees
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838fUCCr6Vm_D3BW6m6JtLnvDBicGTFp6kx2ZSQd_7dJBA>