From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 23 12:24:27 2004 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 82B0B16A4CE for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:24:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E4543D2D for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:24:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id CC3E81472C; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:24:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:24:26 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/libvanessa_adt Makefile pkg-plist ports/devel/libvanessa_adt/files patch-ltmain.sh 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, 23 Mar 2004 20:24:27 -0000 In cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org (and Cc:ed to cvs-all@FreeBSD.org and ports-committers@FreeBSD.org), Doug Barton wrote in response to the above commit: > > clement 2004/03/23 08:08:33 PST > > > > Log: > > - kill .la files > I object to both of the stated purposes for this commit. First, > it's been discussed to death that 1. .la files sometimes serve > a useful purpose, and 2. deleting them does not serve a useful > purpose. Although it has indeed been discussed to death, it has never made it into the Porter's Handbook. Since you are familiar with the rationale (I, personally, do not remember), could you possibly summarize the purpose that they serve so that I can write up a PR against the Handbook? In that way, perhaps we can avoid further iterations of this topic. (I think we can all agree that that would be a good thing?) [I am including the following paragraph from the original only for context, since the reply-to has been redirected; I don't have anything I want to say about it -- mcl] > Second, if a user has the port installed already, a bumped > PORTREVISION would suggest to them that there is some benefit in > deleting the existing port and reinstalling. Here that is clearly > not the case. > I suggest that you avoid all such commits in the future. This is the second email that I have seen in the past few weeks with almost exactly the same wording. While objecting to any commit is certainly your right, I think you underestimate how demoralizing it is to pick one of these messages out of your mbox. I would prefer if we could keep our criticism on the constructive side. Thanks. mcl