Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 05:24:05 +0100 From: tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nvidia-driver and no update in /usr/ports/UPDATING Message-ID: <Yk%2B45eUEqcr2feBi@cloud9.zyxst.net> In-Reply-To: <20220408043958.788fb8e1d0d404c590a211d2@sohara.org> References: <Yk9tEmvtQB5JEWoz@cloud9.zyxst.net> <Yk%2Bfip5KdWYjn99h@cloud9.zyxst.net> <20220408040100.7ce89e7d46a0cea249a89711@sohara.org> <Yk%2BqU539Vj%2BjS5a4@cloud9.zyxst.net> <20220408043958.788fb8e1d0d404c590a211d2@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--jF1MwzQBuAL7EKSq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:39:58AM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:21:55 +0100 >tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> wrote: > >> Where, exactly, did I rant, in that report? Honestly, I can't >> see where. > > It's a rant because it's not actionable. > > You failed to explain the impact on the user - you clearly know >what the impact was but I couldn't tell from your bug report what the entry >needed to tell the user just that you thought one was needed to tell people >something about a name change. This wasn't a "bug" to "fix" in the usual sense. My issue there wasn't that the name changed per se, it was that there was no notice of=20 it in UPDATING. My issue is that baseline changes that by policy should=20 be recorded in UPDATING, are not and this is causing chaos. I can accomodate a name change if it's added to UPDATING because=20 UPDATING is something I regularly check (like every time before a=20 pkg upgrade) If a font name is changed then everything referencing that font=20 name will fail to display unless the php (in this case) referencing the font also changes its reference. This I would think would be implicitly understood by the font maintainer. If bash changed name of its installed binary to aildgjvoieaf,=20 wouldn't you expect this to be in UPDATING? > A suggested entry would go a *long* way to getting it addressed - >you clearly know what the entry should say having solved the problems >yourself but you didn't bother to share your experience in detail. Does the maintainer not know how to make an entry in UPDATING for a port they're maintainer for? If so, that would be news to me. > Because you didn't provide a solution when you could and should >have done so and you didn't make it easy for the triager to assess the >importance of the bug. My "solution" is in the bug. From the bug: "The name of this font has changed to include the version number.=20 Can something about this be put in /usr/ports/UPDATING ?=20 Because otherwise it's easy to miss." I was never asking to modify a program. I was asking for the fact it=20 had been non-trivially modified to be put into UPDATING. I showed=20 the consequences of the port update.Why was that not actionable? --=20 J. --jF1MwzQBuAL7EKSq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEE8n3tWhxW11Ccvv9/s8o7QhFzNAUFAmJPuN0ACgkQs8o7QhFz NAV56A/+O0L80oT/gS5uprA90EGs2zkvIYV8BkoxSDY1TDOXm9eVkRdQyNKG0UWg vCQ1YVT8FfCHhOdc4EG2H4UpAmeiKC+FVtzTA/7n60cda/+FgO2XFoYFom+4qQ2T s/cQc4SlK1OUbTfoEWtS2KCIm5mK4HlEyRB7dOejpmy0Q5ygDsNi7b5CyEnMUpL+ XROECtKDVXCEJViOoEPhzgpMkIRzDIt+yX1JvhjvFK/h5MjtTSjOTXAUgdy6/QT3 DiJEa1YLg2dQj0Eih+Bb6dhnVqYHWKrx7UcJRsrxVk+pD+iEyKWxiMq2Dn0MLUeq 7Qm6uCEcslhPfV5J2xZRDLtdwVf/xpS2hdclPiQ//E48QXtEkiB/NLSUCYqKpxgu 31AnELm6EV+Vg+xuPhMNenBUadZnY3Dfjicv9RL4lBMfYZly6IIfTX82MHzhT4EL krE1LEooBavIyAUBxr6CbnboDNeho6VltDPmyZjnfQOnqjzQxNiQumn3V9Ml/L59 rndqblu7owIRloPBPtXjz2E3lSvmNHJyFWvsTZpgJiUctANOSBUIioyq9cSwCjFg 8RYXFS08tfcx7P+4pewzTNN87421HK1ltxi0kyVo/AaEQQ6lRB/N3hj2QGkyBT8y HfIOYQaWtOvnIkrI3MnVpqRYNxKEuZ+j1gL/vyfI9eVHjx6nlkA= =H/QC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jF1MwzQBuAL7EKSq--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Yk%2B45eUEqcr2feBi>