Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 22:00:55 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 'pkg upgrade -f spamassassin' stops but doesn't restart spamd Message-ID: <5A528A87.4050908@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <5A528749.9070308@grosbein.net> References: <76627A89-D7E9-4010-910B-5F25886E7E7E@ellael.org> <5A523873.2050001@quip.cz> <5A524855.2040901@grosbein.net> <5A5284CC.9050400@quip.cz> <5A528749.9070308@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eugene Grosbein wrote on 2018/01/07 21:47: > 08.01.2018 3:36, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >>> There IS consensus on modifying config files while upgrade and it is written in our Porter's Handbook: >>> only unmodified files may be changes with upgrade. Any other behaviour is a bug that should be fixed. >> >> If it is that simple then tell me how it is possible that for many years there are repetitive discussions >> and many ports with many commits violating this "rule"? > > Because: > > 1) People are lazy and make errors creating ports violating Porter's handbook instructions; > 2) People are lazy and do not create formal Problem Reports even when they are annoyed > hoping that SomeOne (TM) would do that for them. > > Where are your PRs? PRs are false alibi. Some of my PRs are open for more than 10 years. PRs doesn't solve anything even if they have patches. That's why I tried to discuss it publicly. For all erroneous port there must be will on maintainer and committer side. And if "they" think this is not a bug, than why should I spent my time filling another PR which will be left open indefinitely. I will let someone else to fight windmills. Unluckily it is simpler (for me) to maintain private changes to ports tree in local VCS. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A528A87.4050908>