From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 29 23:49:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2288E106566C for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:49:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerry@seibercom.net) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00288FC0A for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yhfs35 with SMTP id s35so4986302yhf.13 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=seibercom.net; s=google; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:reply-to :organization:x-mailer:face:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wUPjKr3/fZmVCjlf1EWUNcYWwND7iUvEawlD4Noc1is=; b=SpY9Z1ahE2WA24rYJVJOFQD6IoMVLKhjZ+pH04pk7wwnEe3PtU1v4zLGbuse65o9Tg Dgq+ckLMRaZH/qCPsQMBekVtUEk7H55IkE7QkrfWbm7fcrpA8jMPAAw1Omxgr47doUpJ i21xNmiYFFuNYG5Ht5PrNMUQd5x762xjjv/IM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:reply-to :organization:x-mailer:face:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=wUPjKr3/fZmVCjlf1EWUNcYWwND7iUvEawlD4Noc1is=; b=gDKGzA2yUmhkfEXGvXfsJb/r4cg04rUTWjFKqyypJqBAw53E64KvTebq/49T8zBWtw ibNDrw00wyHuiVHXAQ0BGVi10byybhdu7e+ew740mRwx7i13JNKgyEc88J8kTkMRIQI9 EmRz9qGeaWBI0kCAjdC8bbwkoFttbehkahd8jZZjZu/Szmx1d1H+RQUIfm5UFg4Mb/77 qVhOuTX0Jf/UNruDp4WW/gFp11oUXM0B5oqkXFYbwozq89HNQDA03yqEkI7C1T89rcfs GrHo8eLpCOdVocUVeX0KhUPBCARsPnILPVO5zxHV3pvo1pRMSQx6NpR6nVSEBTiw8qDa zhSA== Received: by 10.236.114.231 with SMTP id c67mr8575822yhh.119.1343605751394; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scorpio.seibercom.net (cpe-076-182-104-150.nc.res.rr.com. [76.182.104.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a4sm7840044anm.14.2012.07.29.16.49.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scorpio (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jerry@scorpio.seibercom.net) by scorpio.seibercom.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3Wlgc402yLz2CG62 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:49:07 -0400 From: Jerry To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120729194907.39dda482@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <5015BC5E.10501@FreeBSD.org> References: <000601cd6a76$af1de6b0$0d59b410$@quicknet.nl> <50103781.8060904@FreeBSD.org> <20120725183432.4e73b434@scorpio> <20120729074644.59db2447@scorpio> <5015BC5E.10501@FreeBSD.org> Organization: seibercom.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.3) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHTHjuZKWUmXIR1II3R2IBdV+NhUZCCGWHF9rWU7QyLxLFJbpzV9Qeqb+JU6Q/FFBV4742 Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:49:18 -0000 On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:42:38 -0700 Doug Barton articulated: > 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. First of all, lets make something clear, I have no respect for you. You are like a frigging kid. The only permanent solution is to smash your frigging head in with a bat. Oops, I hope I didn't offend you. Maybe you should CC your mother so she can protect you, you asshole. > 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. Allow me to respond to that, "BULLSHIT". Oh, did I offend you? I never asked the frigging entire Internet to bow down to my will; I simple asked not to be CC'd. Since you, most likely due to your NPD affiliation are unable to honor my simple request, why the frigging hell should I afford yours any traction? You do realize that you do not have to include my name in the CC line don't you? > > 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. Ask question yes; stating that any patch or whatever not be instituted because it doesn't meet your standards is repulsive. (NPD strikes again) > > 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. Based upon who's opinion, yours? There is that NPD kicking in again. Lets all bow down to Dough the magnificent. Only he is worthy to judge whether a port is deemed worthy of being updated. I am going to file a PR against this for insertion into the handbook. I know it will never get published, but it just another "feel good" thing. > > 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. So why not let the port maintainer express his feeling on this matter? Do you feel he is not capable, or should I say as capable as you of expressing his feelings? > 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. So you are proposing that ports only be updated when specifically requested by users? Again, the last Bash update took nearly a year. This one is several months old all ready. If the port is only going to be updated semi-annually, or annually, then it would behoove the maintainer to publicly state so. What is so frigging hard about that. Personally, whether Bash is updated in the ports tree means nothing to me; mine all ready is. What does annoy me is when an NPD suffering individual tries to impose his will on others. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________