From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 3 06:49:13 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FF9576D; Sun, 3 May 2015 06:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f10.opsec.eu (f10.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200:4::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5575B199F; Sun, 3 May 2015 06:49:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pi by f10.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.85 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Yoni8-000Onj-Fw; Sun, 03 May 2015 08:49:08 +0200 Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 08:49:08 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Max Brazhnikov Cc: Kurt Jaeger , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r385202 - head/java/junit Message-ID: <20150503064908.GD1022@f10.opsec.eu> References: <201505021800.t42I0xaa004772@svn.freebsd.org> <10839610.e5Z7ptFl8I@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk> <20150502201901.GC1022@f10.opsec.eu> <7414201.QOQxnrnzxF@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7414201.QOQxnrnzxF@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk> X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 06:49:13 -0000 Hi! > > > Thanks for update! Could you also commit the patch for libreoffice > > > from this PR? > > > > The patch is submitted to the relevant PR: > > > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199819 > > This PR shows the problem with junit-4.11_1, I don't see why it's > relevant to libreoffice problem with the newest junit. Because junit was updated because it no longer built ? I see that one argue both ways, but what's the gain ? > > If someone from office@ approves it, I can commit it. > > Too late, you have already committed update for junit, so please > just fix all dependent ports now. Done for libreoffice. Does that mean that I have implicit approval to commit the fix that danilo proposed for java/berkeley-db as well ? So why isn't danilo doing this 8-} ? https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199869 I'm getting confused on those rules about maintainer approval and other 'approval' rules, and more and more I come to the conclusion that it's no longer the simple, rational rulebase that one can easily grok. If committing to one port implicit makes one responsible for other ports beyond a certain 'depedency horizont', in a complex dependency tree this might lead to huge amounts of additional work that might become so huge as to not do it in the beginning. Is that a sensible way to handle this ? > Any comments on the second question in my previous mail? Ups, I have not seen your second question, probably cutting down on the quote would have made it easier to find ? >From what I understand, junit used/included hamcrest in the past and no longer does. I have not analysed whether there are cases where junit is needed and hamcrest is not. If danilo wants to comment on that ? -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 5 years to go !