From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 28 20:48:08 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org 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 63CBD16A41F for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:48:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from tinker.exit.com (tinker.exit.com [206.223.0.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0934043D45 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:48:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from [206.223.0.5] (realtime [206.223.0.5]) by tinker.exit.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6SKm7Vb098223; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:48:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Message-ID: <42E94487.6090909@exit.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:48:07 -0700 From: Frank Mayhar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050725) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schmehl References: <42E81050.7090305@cs.tu-berlin.de> <66A226C3557B48ED535E3FED@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <20050727230523.GB54954@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728154248.GA943@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20050728164111.GA66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <42E917BA.10406@exit.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.86.1/995/Wed Jul 27 13:13:50 2005 on tinker.exit.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New port with maintainer ports@FreeBSD.org [was: Question about maintainers] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:48:08 -0000 Paul Schmehl wrote: >> I _certainly_ think that a port submitted with a maintainer of >> 'ports@freebsd.org' should hit the bit bucket immediately and never see >> the light of day. If it's important enough to submit, it should be >> important enough to maintain. >[Tale of woe elided; if you want to read it, it's in the archives.] First off, this is commonly referred to as "biting off more than you can chew." Perhaps you should have chosen something a little smaller as your first port? It is certainly acceptable for someone to put together a "port" that is good enough for internal use without ever bringing it up to port-quality for submission. I have done that several times with various packages that weren't worth my time to fully port-ize. From time to time I have also submitted patches to an existing port in order to fix it so that I can use it as a dependency for something of mine. > Now I've finally created ports for the sensor and server portions of > sguild, and I'm working on the client portion. If FreeBSD adopts the > policy you suggest in your last paragraph, hat would me that I would > *also* have to take over maintainence for the following ports: tcl, > itcl, tk and iwidgets. Let's look at what I wrote in my "last paragraph." I said: I _certainly_ think that a port submitted with a maintainer of 'ports@freebsd.org' should hit the bit bucket immediately and never see the light of day. If it's important enough to submit, it should be important enough to maintain. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but tcl, itcl, tk and iwidgets were already in ports, were they not? So they could not possibly have been "submitted with a maintainer of 'ports@freebsd.org.'" Of course, this is not to say that you should not have been the stuckee for those ports. If you learned enough to update them, you probably learned enough to continue to maintain them. (You may not have had the _time_ to maintain them, but that's an entirely different issue.) Quite honestly, if you were to feel intimidated, that's _your_ problem. If you feel too intimidated to take something on, then don't do so, but also don't complain that it hasn't been addressed. In short, this isn't Linux. The people here are professionals and expect at least a certain amount of professionalism from the others on the project. This is, in my opinion also being a professional, a reasonable expectation. > If we adopted your suggestion, there would be no port for sguil, because > I never would have taken it on. I would have given up. And that means > there would also be no port for barnyard, and no port for sancp. > > Is that what you want? Believe me, that situation would have been preferable the content of this thread. As far as the package itself is concerned, I honestly don't care. If I _did_ care, though, I would do something about it, either privately or in public, and I would do my damnedest to adhere to professional standards. I wouldn't whine about how doing it right is too "intimidating." Ultimately, this is a tempest in a teapot. If you can't maintain those ports, you can't, and no amount of browbeating is going to change that. On the other hand, don't expect the FreeBSD folks to change their policy just to make you feel better. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/