Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:28:20 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r365590 - in head/cad/spice: . files Message-ID: <53F6E304.2080304@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <53F69CA6.1060909@FreeBSD.org> References: <201408211941.s7LJf6de048334@svn.freebsd.org> <53F663B2.3000800@marino.st> <20140822.070939.1253386656808735449.hrs@allbsd.org> <53F66EE5.7080500@FreeBSD.org> <53F6724A.6000602@marino.st> <53F69CA6.1060909@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/22/2014 03:28, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 8/21/2014 5:27 PM, John Marino wrote: >> Frankly he should revert this immediately. It was working before >> everywhere. > > This attitude is completely wrong. This is FreeBSD ports. You should not > be harping on people for writing to FreeBSD. Whatever bapt has told has > told you does not negate this. We support you using FreeBSD for dports > but the fact is that dports is a fork anyway. Nothing is stopping you > from modifying dports for these fixes where required. Please stop mis-classifying dports as a fork. I have corrected you on this before, and it's getting old. It is not a fork by any conventional definition and continuing to call it that is the spreading misinformation. > It really is not okay to be giving people this sort of response. > > Asking someone to use a more portable change for the sake of upstreaming > and use on DragonFly is fine. Screaming that they are are only changing > things to break your work is not, or that they are doing things wrong > when they are perfectly fine in the normal 20 year convention is not. > You, and possibly bapt, are the only committers who really care about > getting ports working on DragonFly. Please consider that next time you > bring it up. Others are offended by you demanding they change things or > that they did it wrong for DFLY. If somebody reverted your working changes with no change in functionality, you'd get it. I'm going to bring this topic up officially in another forum given my extensive contributions both personally and how supporting multiple platforms has directly improved ports. We have example after example of stuff that's been done for a decade that is wrong. I do not need to list them. This is another example. Luckily it is not nearly as common as you are letting on. Luckily there is hardly any non-freebsd ports that use freebsd sys.mk. > > Regarding this individual change, you have provided no evidence it > breaks anywhere. And as I've pointed out there are plenty of other ports > using bsd.prog.mk. 127 files reference it. It is perfectly reasonable > for someone to use bsd.prog.mk in ports. NO EVIDENCE !?????????? How about pkg-mgmt/pkg ? Is that prominent enough for you? We have to add an additional makefile to install all the periodic scripts, because of this bad practice of using sys.mk. A big thank you for that, by the way. Ports should only use makefile fragments *that the port collections controls*. The reason why should be obvious.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53F6E304.2080304>