Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:50:02 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> Cc: FreeBSD Ports Mailing List <ports@freebsd.org>, Julien Laffaye <jlaffaye@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: recent ports removal Message-ID: <4E860F5A.3020401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E8604F4.6010304@yandex.ru> References: <4E858E86.4010402@yandex.ru> <4E8590CD.8050005@FreeBSD.org> <4E8591E5.6010005@yandex.ru> <4E8604C4.5070804@FreeBSD.org> <4E8604F4.6010304@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/30/2011 11:05, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 22:04: >> On 09/30/2011 02:54, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: >>> Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50: >>>> On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: >>>>> Hi, Doug. >>>>> >>>>> You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to >>>>> latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682. >>>> >>>> Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the >>>> files out of the Attic. >>>> >>>> >>>> Doug >>> >>> Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like "we >>> do not remove the ports with open pr's on them". >> >> I think you misunderstand what "remove" means in this context. :) Or >> perhaps you've never worked with a version control system ... It's > > [just for thrulz] > Yes, it's my second day around the computer system. > [/just for thrulz] I meant no offense. I don't know you, so I have no idea what your experience is or isn't. :) > I understand that it can be restored in one click, but what the point to > remove it in first place if it known that someone already working on it > and will undelete it in near time? Because if, for whatever reason, Julien decides not to update it then removing it on schedule is the safest course of action. > As far i understand it makes commiter's life little a bit harder No, it really, REALLY doesn't. Seriously. > and most important - it confuses the > users, who actually using this ports. Which is more confusing to users: 1. Port is scheduled for removal, never gets updated, never gets removed. 2. Port that they cannot install anyway disappears for a short time, then reappears in a usable, non-vulnerable state? Also, please keep in mind that nothing depends on the ports that I removed, so at worst we're talking a minor inconvenience for someone who already has the port installed. > Ok, actually i'm asking all this questions in first place because your > action on pyblosxom did not conform with this sentence by bapt@: > > """ >> How can ports be removed if the solutions for them is in gnats? >> > > They won't before deleting ports, we always check gnats, if a PR exists > then we leave the ports so that the PR can be committed > """ > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069998.html > > So i'm just curious what is the agreed policy about such ports? Please > don't get me wrong. Insert the word "permanently" in front of "deleting" in that sentence, and I think you'll get the right idea. hth, Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E860F5A.3020401>