From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 29 22:42:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D33A106566C for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:42:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6051B14DB5B for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5015BC5E.10501@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:42:38 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120728 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <000601cd6a76$af1de6b0$0d59b410$@quicknet.nl> <50103781.8060904@FreeBSD.org> <20120725183432.4e73b434@scorpio> <20120729074644.59db2447@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20120729074644.59db2447@scorpio> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28 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: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:42:38 -0000 Umm ... wow. I'll try to respond substantively below. On 07/29/2012 04:46, Jerry wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT) > Doug Barton articulated: > >> Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your >> mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not >> always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are >> (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash >> patches are not always strictly bug fixes. > > First of all, I see you CC'd me "AGAIN". Obviously your comprehension > skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted request NOT to be > CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you not to do so. I made a point of cc'ing you on my last message because I wanted to make sure you saw the bit about not using foul language. I appreciate you respecting that. Meanwhile, yes, you've expressed a preference not to be cc'ed on list mail previously. Rather than trying to rehash the whole discussion, I'll simply repeat the main 2 points: 1. Asking the entire Internet to conform to your whim is not a rational strategy. 2. The FreeBSD mailman implementation allows you to specify only receiving 1 copy of a message that you are cc'ed on. > I took > the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do any > good, but it is a feel good thing. Knock yourself out. :) > Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can bring > in or expose new or undiscovered problems. You keep repeating this "none of your business" line as if for some reason I don't have the right to ask the question. This is an open project, we can all ask questions. > It has been shown throughout > history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of > problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because there is > a real possibility that someone man get electrified. Yeah, that's just silly. Before we upgrade something it's useful to ask the question of whether or not the upgrade is qualitatively "better" or not. Just because something comes down from upstream doesn't mean it's an improvement from our users' perspective. > By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your > problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail? I > have. I already mentioned that I did review the patches. >> There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more >> conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version. > > That is a lot about nothing. Postfix is updated in virtual real time. > For every port that you can list that is left effectively abandoned for > extended periods of time, I can produce one that is updated in a timely > fashion. ... all of which would be totally irrelevant. Maintainers are responsible for deciding whether to update, and is so, when. They are also responsible for making sure that the new version is actually an improvement. For some ports/maintainers these are easy decisions. For others they may take time, and/or the maintainer themselves may have to prioritize the update amongst many other projects. Getting information from the users as to why a particular update may have a higher priority than is obvious at first glance is very valuable to the maintainer. OTOH it does occasionally happen that maintainers don't have time to handle the port in a timely manner, and need to be replaced. In that case, the information about maintainers ignoring important updates is also useful to the community. I'm deleting your whole ad hominem attack because there wasn't anything substantive in there to respond to. Good luck, Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)