From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 06:43:04 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B7B16A4CE for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 06:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.unsam.edu.ar (smtp.unsam.edu.ar [170.210.48.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCBD43FCB for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 06:43:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar) Received: from pi.iib.unsam.edu.ar (pi.iib.unsam.edu.ar [192.168.10.11]) by smtp.unsam.edu.ar (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hABEe1Ma064809 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:40:08 -0300 (ART) (envelope-from fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar) Received: from pi.iib.unsam.edu.ar (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.iib.unsam.edu.ar (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hABEgSn7000654 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:42:31 -0300 (ART) (envelope-from fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar) Received: (from fernan@localhost) by pi.iib.unsam.edu.ar (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id hABEgLSE000653 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:42:21 -0300 (ART) (envelope-from fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar) X-Authentication-Warning: pi.iib.unsam.edu.ar: fernan set sender to fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar using -f Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:42:21 -0300 From: Fernan Aguero To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031111144221.GA527@iib.unsam.edu.ar> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110152000.622db381.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <1068471598.38101.77.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110163623.GC93583@procyon.firepipe.net> <3FB02895.5050108@ciam.ru> <20031111001932.GA95315@toxic.magnesium.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031111001932.GA95315@toxic.magnesium.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:43:04 -0000 +----[ Adam Weinberger (10.Nov.2003 21:21): | | > Is it so easy? | > Where can I get a mentor? :) | | Submit lots of PRs, and a mentor will get you. As far as I'm concerned, | people get offerred commit bits because committers get sick of | committing so many PRs from somebody ;;) | | # Adam | +----] And I think that maybe this is the reason why there are not so many volunteers submitting stuff? I may be able to maintain a couple of ports, but currently I don't have the time to spent playing around with stuff I don't know/need, just to get a committer's atention. Although I'm now more experienced than I was a couple of years ago, I don't consider myself a 'guru'. I can't program in C, and I still have problems understanding the way autoconf/configure works (in a way that would let me fix or work around problems). But this hasn't stopped me from trying to fix things. In the past I sent a couple of PRs with updates for a few ports. The maintainer was too busy to update them and I took the time to help him. Some of the ports are now obsolete, as are my PRs. Thing is, I may take some time to work on a port and fix/update it. I may also take some time to write to the list asking for someone to pay attention to one or two PRs. But if I get no reply I would consider that no one is interested in the port, which is bad for end users and for the project, because this really means that 'there was no committer interested in the port'. Which gets me back to the origin of this thread: should maintainers have commit privileges for their ports? My answer is that for big ports (Gnome, KDE, XFree86), ports that are builduing blocks for other ports (autoconf, libtool, etc.) and libraries that are widely used (gettext comes to mind), we should follow our current policy. Maintainers graduate to committers after showing proficiency in what they do. On the other side, there are many ports that are just applications: no other port depends on them, and there is little risk if the port is not perfect. In my particular case I'm thinking in the biology stuff, because that's my main interest. I guess that only a minority of the FreeBSD user base would ever install one of those ports. And for those that do, what is the potential impact of doing a less-than-perfect port? Breaking hier(7)? In this case, the consequences of bad porting practices would impact the port itself. My coin, Fernan -- F e r n a n A g u e r o http://genoma.unsam.edu.ar/~fernan