From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 22:33:09 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5E7DA58 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:33:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B39071BC7 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:33:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s81MX9ao050761 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:33:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193212] [stage] sysutils/bsdconfig Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 22:33:09 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: portmaster@bsdforge.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Patch Ready X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 22:33:10 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193212 --- Comment #9 from C Hutchinson --- (In reply to John Marino from comment #7) > Daniel, thanks, moving to patch-ready status > > Chris, > I believe that you think you understand, but you've continually made the > same gross mistake after I've pointed out the mistake several times with > pretty harsh language, e.g. "the MAN= mistake was frankly astonishing". I > made such a big deal about it that I never expected to see the same mistake > again, yet you made it several times after that. > > The most basic checks (which are available to you now), "make check-plist" > would have caught this error. The error didn't get caught, so obviously it > wasn't tested. The only explanation that makes sense is that you never > understood why the "MAN=" definitions were a problem, nor how to fix it, > nor that redports can't detect it. > > So I truly believe there is a serious understanding issue underground. > Please try to understand MAN pages fixes and all those "make" checks I > listed previously. There is zero excuse not to do those, and I want to see > the *OUTPUT* of those checks. I don't assume that you did them, I want > proof. Actually. I _do_ understand. But I _completely_ understand how you would arrive at your conclusion. I hit this port too late in the day, and in _too_ big a hurry. I just submitted a patch that I am confident addresses all of the previous issues this port had. IMHO I think it is also cleaner that the one just submitted before mine. :) Thanks, John, and sorry for all the bother. --Chris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.