Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:15:28 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Matthias Andree <mandree@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/diskcheckd needs fixing and a maintainer Message-ID: <CADLo83-fu_B1S0Lcnypdhy%2BSe-stdmyBFVwHEinmyenBsLOfHQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E4CBBEE.4040302@FreeBSD.org> References: <CADLo83-kEaQyFOiR45WmYdOru8vqu-MhAgb9p=OhjOo-TVUwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <201108171436.p7HEaNYQ071778@fire.js.berklix.net> <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com> <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <CADLo83-MXGLOQexp9woAeSmKvC8rBobM49pidTBC7-eXTwoCZA@mail.gmail.com> <4E4CBBEE.4040302@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Aug 2011 08:15, "Matthias Andree" <mandree@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Am 18.08.2011 08:20, schrieb Chris Rees: > > On 18 August 2011 09:03, <perryh@pluto.rain.com> wrote: > >> Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> We don't want to provide broken software. > >> > >> Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > >> > >>> ... it's obsolete, broken, junk ... > >> > >> Unless there is more to this than is reported in those two PRs, > >> I'd call it a considerable exaggeration to describe diskcheckd > >> as "broken". > >> > >> * http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/115853 > >> is shown as "closed", so presumably is no longer a problem. > > > > Wow, would it have been too difficult to actually READ the closing > > message from Jeremy? I suggest you look again -- I've pasted it here > > so you can see it. > > > > "The problem here is that the code does not do what the manpage says (or > > vice-versa). The 3rd column does not specify frequency of checking, but > > rather, over what duration of time to spread a single disk scan over. > > Thus, 7 days would mean "spread the entire disk check at X rate over the > > course of 7 days". There is still a bug in the code where large disks > > will cause problems resulting in updateproctitle() never getting called, > > and so on, but that's unrelated to this PR. I'm closing the PR because > > trying to fix all of this should really be ben@'s responsibility. > > (Sorry for sounding harsh.)" > > > > How does that indicate it's fixed? It's an 'abandoned' PR. > > This would be a case for marking it suspended (or possibly analyzed, > depending on which of these two fits best), rather than closing it. > The status is also a statement... > > > Thank you for testing and investigating, this is what the port has > > needed, and two days of being deprecated has achieved more than 18 > > months of a PR being open. > > So the bottom line for this case is, we sometimes only get sufficient > attention through deprecating ports. Unfortunately that approach might > wear off some day. Too bad. :-( I don't see how, ignoring a PR, nothing happens. Ignore a depreciation, port dies! Let's get this straight, I was not 'attracting attention', I was saying 'I'm going to remove this port; it's been broken for over a year.' > Do we need a "think twice before adding a port" habit? Yes. Of course, these aren't pointless ports however; while still developed and maintained they were once useful. It's time to go when they break and bitrot. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-fu_B1S0Lcnypdhy%2BSe-stdmyBFVwHEinmyenBsLOfHQ>