Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:11:25 +0100 From: tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nvidia-driver and no update in /usr/ports/UPDATING Message-ID: <Yk%2Bn3cF9HjixtuLv@cloud9.zyxst.net> In-Reply-To: <20220408033457.847c7f829ab41f4db9a00ef3@sohara.org> References: <Yk9tEmvtQB5JEWoz@cloud9.zyxst.net> <20220408033457.847c7f829ab41f4db9a00ef3@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Qsou2B0pspkMy+eO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:34:57AM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:00:34 +0100 >tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> wrote: > >> So *WHY* were the consequences of PR 261666 not in /usr/ports/UPDATING? >> nvidia-driver was updated to (560) i think. 5-something.. the instance >> before was moved to nvidia-driver-470 as it's now legacy. That's great >> and all, but *WHY* the *F**K* isn't in *UPDATING??!??!?!?!* > > You know if this was a commercial product for which you were paying >for support and you spoke like that to a support worker you would get hung >up on and blacklisted for verbal abuse. It is no more acceptable in text, >especially since you are talking to users - I very much doubt that anyone >involved will see your rant. I disagree with you here, having supported commercial products for over a decade. I thought my missive was mild; though that might be cultural. This isn't truly a rant, and I'm astonished you're discounting=20 it as such. I'm frustrated because it seems some ports maintainers will not follow freebsd policies. That costs time and money, makes people like me less likely to trust freebsd; it's all so=20 needless. Yes, I realise freebsd is free. It markets itself as "the power to serve". Well, it can't serve very well if port maintainers fail to follow policy. So, maybe a better and=20 more honest slogan would be "the power to serve, but if you=20 use ports then, well, you're on your own". At least we'd know where we are. As I understand it, there's no need to modify UPDATING if the port has simply moved. But if the executable name changes=20 or if the version changes majorly and *especially* if it's a kernel module then yeah I expect it to be in UPDATING. > Now to answer your question - there's nothing in UPDATING because >the port maintainer for that port didn't put anything in there when they >made the change.=20 I realised this before my post and it's the reason for it. > So if you want to know why you could look up the >maintainer (listed in the Makefile) and ask them *politely* about it - >maybe they had to rush a child to hospital or attend some social event and >forgot to do it. Whatever the reason they deserve politeness and gratitude >for what they have done not abuse for what they haven't. Here's a way to avoid the whole issue - update *UPDATING* before making=20 the change, and make that *mandatory* in order to update a port. Having a polite communication with the maintainer is pointless in this=20 circumstance. See https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D249252 which was ignored, twice. The problem is one of policy. > Or you could hurl anonymous abuse at the uninvolved with thinly >disguised obscenities in a public forum to no effect whatsoever except to >make yourself look foolish. Foolish for articulating my frustration? You think my post is without merit? It's the situation I'm frustrated with. There's a policy in place for changes like this and as far as I can tell it's not being followed in some cases. This makes like hell for me for any freebsd=20 system I support. I guess you think it's better i ditch freebsd and use something else? Maybe I should just bite my lip, shut up and go away? --=20 J. --Qsou2B0pspkMy+eO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEE8n3tWhxW11Ccvv9/s8o7QhFzNAUFAmJPp9UACgkQs8o7QhFz NAWuIQ//WS7wWird2dyBMt+7L8bBeDASAHszEp1gAMP78q3UVAYOHBxlAwsVo612 hhZndT9cqHDNcLBcdj0t+OFzFT8ShmJEAaO4vJM7VphBRSRUHTjQG5IMENOtKzHB qSAObKPPAz/ZJUeUSi+bYp6cBiBXIKZ8vzP68ZZENTpsSu9gDELpxvNrstTdrj+e 3EFAkTqoRq3vRi6d20urWEaeTNWd0XKMjra9Pm4nuabGblqzQysjic2cDhBRAcGU dsGM5yqfQKvOK4XMrKFMrtc6ldU+B3TXgD5BS79dNTi8id2FV1RDsM9Aesei93de ZNGWg7Z5fXKTz40ObKyj1DLJWF9t5VoBM/gEExmJvfaK3q/MIG9envA857z92elg qRj6B2Pwn7Dy+PlRSZcjfXdM5KQ+OQgSM+8rXAQUF5EN9wmByuNW8nDWVUPyAzw/ 9MPbU4eA8hRUGI5mB6OY0ADTzQNbE3QWlutkjQkVAEHhWv75uLORL2yKXZL6BgC2 Snq2wG4myHEtgeRdQ5a10mvKD5XPK9Gfwg1MxtmeGH3UYWoDtJvywPCYTIBX9gVm A4i2HbRyqgNI0cRH2JBopAHosOgo/wFtZv0KBlWEqiwZaPcjKhjKclKe9MT+uSux 1YIEDs3hBLw1ZwHnfYJzgiq5in+h8RqgJwMd3opFukJm0bbvcoU= =7ei+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qsou2B0pspkMy+eO--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Yk%2Bn3cF9HjixtuLv>