From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Sep  5 16:20:34 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E5316A4BF
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Fri,  5 Sep 2003 16:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6194400B
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Fri,  5 Sep 2003 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id DA2361435F; Fri,  5 Sep 2003 18:20:32 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:20:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho
To: "Adam C. Migus" <adam@migus.org>
In-Reply-To: <49222.192.168.4.2.1062744486.squirrel@mail.migus.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309051813350.3227-100000@pancho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: config files in packages (Re: (proposal) new flagforpkg_delete)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:20:34 -0000

> This approach works great assuming every port is well written, but
> every port isn't well written.

Granted.

> Considering absence of this behavior a bug is fine if you want a
> million PR's, a lot of discouraged port maintainers

While the PR system is imperfect, it's the best mechanism for
getting bugs fixed that we have.  Also, recently the pace of
ports PR commits has picked up; if you look at the PR statistics
page you'll see this confirmed.

Plus, I don't understand why the above will discourage port maintainers.

A final note: postings like this don't really create progress.
Prototyped code submitted via a PR creates progress, or bugfixes
submitted via a PR create progress, or even bug reports submitted
via a PR create progress.  Even if you write this up as a "desired
feature" and submit that as a PR, that would help move things forward.
But just saying "it's broke" without any further action really
_does_ frustrate folks doing the work.

mcl