From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 10:01:43 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 9985A16A4FF for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-63-207-60-234.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [63.207.60.234]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C07543FDF for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:01:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B51A66BF7; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:01:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:01:41 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031111180141.GB25898@xor.obsecurity.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> <20031111144221.GA527@iib.unsam.edu.ar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031111144221.GA527@iib.unsam.edu.ar> 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 18:01:43 -0000 --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:42:21AM -0300, Fernan Aguero wrote: > Which gets me back to the origin of this thread: should > maintainers have commit privileges for their ports? No offense, but often the answer is "no". Committers are more than just a roadblock to committing PRs, they're a sanity filter that is supposed to correct most of the errors made by maintainers with only a casual interest in the ports tree. Even though I pointed out in a previous message how many errors make it past this sanity filter and into the ports tree, I know that there are a lot more that are filtered out between what is submitted in the PR and what is committed to the tree. > 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,=20 > the consequences of bad porting practices would impact the > port itself.=20 Broken applications degrade the overall quality of the ports collection; provide a bad model for others; cause more work for others to fix the breakage; and ultimately cause more pain for the users of the ports collection. There are up-sides, to be sure, but the down-sides are significant. Kris --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/sSQFWry0BWjoQKURAkvsAKC73zhsQhBgpsHAzzXie74P8Zr3PwCffGmj BnNe95KmSr4B3m0okBh8JGU= =mBtp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw--