From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 15 09:00:57 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBDE16A4DD for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:00:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@FreeBSD.org) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (it.buh.tecnik93.com [81.196.204.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B8243D45 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:00:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@FreeBSD.org) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDEF17670; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:00:55 +0300 (EEST) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:00:55 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai "IOnut" Tetcu To: Jo Rhett Message-ID: <20060715120055.7782e16a@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20060715040705.GF33499@svcolo.com> References: <200605050000.k4500blB001868@freefall.freebsd.org> <20060505014315.GB22804@soaustin.net> <20060715040705.GF33499@svcolo.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_lndqs==WqmOR5oyMd_qG9DE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/95708: freebsd startup script for sec port X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:00:57 -0000 --Sig_lndqs==WqmOR5oyMd_qG9DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:07:05 -0700 Jo Rhett wrote: > > On 04/05/2006, Jo Rhett wrote: > > > I'm highly amused that I would be asked to make some changes, when > > > the request for said changes requires more typing than making the > > > changes. This is what, 41 characters different? > =20 > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:43:15PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > > Some maintainers object, vociferously, to any change made to their ports > > without their approval. Therefore, the default policy is that maintain= ers > > need to be asked, because it is too difficult to remember which maintai= ners > > will complain and which won't. This is a classical case of "damned if = you > > do, damned if you don't." >=20 > I'm not certain we're talking about the same thing. >=20 > Bouncing a patch back to me for a 12-character replacement seemed silly. [I don't know the case in question here.] In addition, in general, bouncing back a change to the maintainer is also a= learning experience that, hopefully, will teach them not to make the same mistake next time. You'd amazed how much we have to deal with same mistakes over and over again. --=20 IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" BOFH excuse #168: le0: no carrier: transceiver cable problem? --Sig_lndqs==WqmOR5oyMd_qG9DE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEuK7HBX6fi0k6KXsRAq+ZAJ9ikm71ntKfBQTvVIWg90wxDiLmgQCgp58a znodk5XRbJZwxe2kVZ0obhI= =i2J3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_lndqs==WqmOR5oyMd_qG9DE--