Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:04:44 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r382341 - in head/lang: gcc46 gcc47 gcc48 gcc49 gcc5 Message-ID: <5514746C.5010909@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <551472A3.8000105@FreeBSD.org> References: <201503262036.t2QKa4Aw076378@svn.freebsd.org> <55147032.4020401@FreeBSD.org> <551470F9.60306@marino.st> <551472A3.8000105@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/26/2015 21:57, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 3/26/2015 3:50 PM, John Marino wrote: >> On 3/26/2015 21:46, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> On 3/26/2015 3:36 PM, John Marino wrote: >>>> Author: marino >>>> Date: Thu Mar 26 20:36:04 2015 >>>> New Revision: 382341 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/382341 >>>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r382341/ >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> lang/gcc(46,47,48,49,5): Use OPTIONS_EXCLUDE_DragonFly to block JAVA >>>> >>>> The JAVA frontend doesn't build on DragonFly on any release. The new >>>> OPTIONS_EXCLUDE_${OPSYS} feature is a nice way to avoid the use of >>>> Makefile.DragonFly (most are in dports, but one is in lang/gcc5). >>>> >>>> The recent addition of CXXFLAGS to lang/gcc5 prevents Makefile.DragonFly >>>> on lang/gcc5 from being removed outright. There are a couple of options >>>> available to allow its removal, but I'll need to discuss with Gerald. >>>> >>>> Approved by: DragonFly blanket >>>> >>> >>> >>> Why do you ignore all feedback? I find this as grounds for removal of >>> commit bit. >>> >>> Why do DragonFly hacks belong in FreeBSD Ports? Not even DragonFly uses >>> FreeBSD Ports, it uses dports. So why can these hacks not be in dports? >> >> Please take these threats offline. >> Your "feedback" directly conflicts with permission I've been given. > > No it absolutely does not. _Bapt_ gave you permission to do DragonFly > cleanups yes. This is not a blank approval to whatever you want. I've > voiced much feedback over the past few days (as well as amdmi3) that you > have completely ignored while hiding behind 'bapt approved it'. That is > not how this community works. I have blanket approval for non-invasive additions to support DragonFly. OPTIONS_EXCLUDE_${OPSYS} qualifies; it's a no-op for FreeBSD. > I also asked you to try to be less dragonfly-specific this morning. I > too am portmgr. Bapt's year+ old blanket approval does not mean you get > to ignore all new feedback. > I really don't care if you have 900000 commits. You must follow the > basic community rules of responding to feedback and listening to others. > You constantly ignore others. If I can't commit for DragonFly, I have no reason to commit at all. portmgr is not a person, it's a committee. If the committee agrees with you that my total contributions (PRs, mentoring) are not worth some non-invasive support, then pull my bit. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5514746C.5010909>