Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:07:08 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: FBSD1 <fbsd1@a1poweruser.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. Message-ID: <20081029090708.GP1137@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBIEDJCMAA.fbsd1@a1poweruser.com> References: <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBMECBCMAA.fbsd1@a1poweruser.com> <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBIEDJCMAA.fbsd1@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--QDIl5R72YNOeCxaP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2008-Oct-29 16:09:23 +0800, FBSD1 <fbsd1@a1poweruser.com> wrote: >It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for >real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the >source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. I'm not sure what you mean by "install the port for real". A port maintainer is responsible for updating his/her ports and verifying that they work. This presumably includes building and installing the port. >Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload >to the package server. This isn't true for a whole variety of reasons. > Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their >changes without creating the required package? Because packages aren't "required" and creation of packages is nothing to do with ports maintainers. =20 > This is just lax management >on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. I suggest you do a bit more reading and a bit less pontificating. > Missing >packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its >being mis-managed. Not all ports have packages for a variety of reasons and there is no requirement that every port has packages for every supported version of FreeBSD. Maybe you need to learn how to "cd /usr/ports/... && make install" --=20 Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. --QDIl5R72YNOeCxaP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkkIJ7wACgkQ/opHv/APuIdYmgCfc3TMrjI0kBh28K9Zfb7JYUqu UY0An2J/xGE5e4lA0twnhyxSJHM/voZh =ziKu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QDIl5R72YNOeCxaP--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081029090708.GP1137>