Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:04:00 +0200 From: Cezary Morga <cm@therek.net> To: andrew clarke <mail@ozzmosis.com> Cc: clsung@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: net/p5-Net-Twitter broken Message-ID: <4A72EBC0.6010308@therek.net> In-Reply-To: <20090731065718.GB56650@ozzmosis.com> References: <20090713023855.GA46001@ozzmosis.com> <4A5B8B9A.8040102@therek.net> <20090730062344.GA38645@ozzmosis.com> <4A7149F7.4040507@therek.net> <20090731065718.GB56650@ozzmosis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
andrew clarke pisze: > I'll attempt a PR, but I'm not at all competent enough in Perl to be > confident in providing a patch. I was not refering to patching Perl code, rather that supplying new port and a little modification to net/p5-Net-Twitter/Makefile in a patch format (diff). I filled a PR ports/137305. > I have to wonder - why have these recent versions of this port been > committed but not tested? > > If it was tested, presumably it would be flagged as "BROKEN". No. The port builds properly, it's just missing some functionality because of missing dependency. This is something automatic checks couldn't catch, and this is what a port maintainer should notice. But, things like this do happen. > But isn't the rationale of the Ports tree to have buildable, working > software? Yes, that's why when you have noticed and verified that the problem exists you should fill in a PR. Even though you can't supply a patch to fix it you would let the maintainer know. -- Cezary Morga
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A72EBC0.6010308>