From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jul 19 16:52:17 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24F69A595E for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:52:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0781F47 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:52:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 9F0749A595B; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA0F9A595A for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:52:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E8441F45; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:52:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so78644014wib.0; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=kaHseaXFYr/Q0sifEjRBNzaOXoLQyfwpDReWkBGbpJo=; b=FCy7SN8jigaQJMTf/jG2/5NYRxtRKlL94Rht38LoOYai4UV8mVXXlgB1lJlPjFgrI9 yAPUBjn6uvTBXC+YLY6ymSuwkx8P8DyE18/1NvTJNosf96SGdMisU3FpM2j4e57oJ93j ejfn8yIi4oxwE8ioqc6xWGSFwhCh6UrlpBWioZPEwV0zeSU/QqbJjQSD1M8EQQpL3d86 XX/vfIy5grIU4QQUfEYsTnFb9EKfA4nXLz8KnW609UCua2QfrU1m/KYQWnHJ6ZTzAMUr WVTVuKNwpV9Bn+oRkJ8xR9RTVKx1NBBU4g+O8kl4ckyXJhbZPpZBD1E7ai2IWTq/nzcv K76A== X-Received: by 10.194.109.229 with SMTP id hv5mr51465981wjb.119.1437324734795; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivaldir.etoilebsd.net ([2001:41d0:8:db4c::1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id eu2sm7709647wic.8.2015.07.19.09.52.13 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:52:11 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Michelle Sullivan Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" , Dimitry Andric Subject: Re: Self committing... allowed or not? Message-ID: <20150719165211.GE50618@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <55AB91ED.3080908@sorbs.net> <9917125A-6342-4F62-B374-E4F456EDC015@FreeBSD.org> <55ABBFEC.60302@sorbs.net> <20150719154449.GD50618@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <55ABD3EA.8010704@sorbs.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3O1VwFp74L81IIeR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55ABD3EA.8010704@sorbs.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:52:18 -0000 --3O1VwFp74L81IIeR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > > =20 > >> Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> =20 > >>> On 19 Jul 2015, at 14:02, Michelle Sullivan wrot= e: > >>> =20 > >>> =20 > >>>> please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't self committing (those with= the > >>>> commit bit committing their own patches without QA/review/adding > >>>> patchfiles to the PR) against the rules?... or is it just a free-for= -all > >>>> now? > >>>> =20 > >>>> =20 > >>> If they are the maintainer, it is OK by definition. Otherwise, appro= val > >>> from either the maintainer or portmgr@ is needed. > >>> > >>> However, a number of people are on vacation, and they have notified > >>> other developers that is OK to fix their ports while they are away. > >>> Within reason, of course. :-) > >>> > >>> In any case, which specific ports are you worried about? > >>> > >>> -Dimitry > >>> > >>> =20 > >>> =20 > >> Here's the case and the three referenced commits: > >> > >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D199265 > >> > >> And I know the top-level dependency will now break other things because > >> of a minor detail that the committer did not take into account... That > >> said I don't know if any other dependencies on it exist (so therefore = it > >> might not break anything else - however I am fairly sure it wasn't > >> checked by the committer because of the speed and absoluteness of the > >> change) because I don't need it/use it myself... but that is not the > >> point. I was 'just lucky' to come across this change process as I was > >> not looking for anything, just happened to be in the right place at the > >> right time to see it, and considering the hoops use plebs (those witho= ut > >> the commit bit) have to jump through I thought it was rather ironic th= at > >> 3 separate ports were changed, no testing was recorded in the PR as we > >> the plebs are required to do, no patches uploaded as we the plebs have > >> to do and no review as we the plebs have to have...=20 > >> > >> =20 > > do you appear to know the said ports were broken (segfault) at startup = because > > of various libssl mixup, they have been tested and fixed. if another is= sue > > appears on those ports I will fix them. > > =20 > I'm guessing you missed the '--use-ldap' in the top level dependency...= =20 > I'm assuming you know there are issues with openldap and the use base vs > use ports issue... particularly with dependent ports and incompatible > options... your 'fix' quite possibly fixed one problem and caused > another (not your fault as it happens - but an unintended consequence of > an unchecked change... if you want to bring order and stability this is > not the way to proceed. (That said neither is laborious change control > and peer review, but some is needed and the rules should apply to > everyone or there will be more chaos.)) I haven't missed the --use-ldap dependency, openldap does respect USE_OPENS= SL as well so even if the situation is quite "broken" dealing with openssl, my co= mmit reduces the inpact on seafile. In fact what I am working on is enforcing openssl (or libressl at user choi= ce) =66rom ports directly (which is why I worked on the ports in the first plac= e - after someone complained on IRC that one month after the ticket being creat= ed nothing happened). Best regards, Bapt --3O1VwFp74L81IIeR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlWr1bsACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ezx1ACfc7S2FhIGH2nSIp3mwTINiqdG QX4AnioQoL2sKs4gNH23pjnyDXO0x1UR =Yvlx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3O1VwFp74L81IIeR--