From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 31 13:04:09 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406F11065670; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:04:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cm@therek.net) Received: from lux.therek.net (lux.therek.net [64.85.172.243]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015498FC1D; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:04:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cm@therek.net) Received: from [10.3.81.80] (gate01.polsat.net.pl [193.164.142.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by lux.therek.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6VD46xa021754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:04:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A72EBC0.6010308@therek.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:04:00 +0200 From: Cezary Morga User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: andrew clarke References: <20090713023855.GA46001@ozzmosis.com> <4A5B8B9A.8040102@therek.net> <20090730062344.GA38645@ozzmosis.com> <4A7149F7.4040507@therek.net> <20090731065718.GB56650@ozzmosis.com> In-Reply-To: <20090731065718.GB56650@ozzmosis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: clsung@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: net/p5-Net-Twitter broken 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:04:09 -0000 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