Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:52:11 +0200
From:      Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net>
Cc:        "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: Self committing... allowed or not?
Message-ID:  <20150719165211.GE50618@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <55ABD3EA.8010704@sorbs.net>
References:  <55AB91ED.3080908@sorbs.net> <9917125A-6342-4F62-B374-E4F456EDC015@FreeBSD.org> <55ABBFEC.60302@sorbs.net> <20150719154449.GD50618@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <55ABD3EA.8010704@sorbs.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--3O1VwFp74L81IIeR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> >  =20
> >> Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >>    =20
> >>> On 19 Jul 2015, at 14:02, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> wrot=
e:
> >>>  =20
> >>>      =20
> >>>> please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't self committing (those with=
 the
> >>>> commit bit committing their own patches without QA/review/adding
> >>>> patchfiles to the PR) against the rules?... or is it just a free-for=
-all
> >>>> now?
> >>>>    =20
> >>>>        =20
> >>> If they are the maintainer, it is OK by definition.  Otherwise, appro=
val
> >>> from either the maintainer or portmgr@ is needed.
> >>>
> >>> However, a number of people are on vacation, and they have notified
> >>> other developers that is OK to fix their ports while they are away.
> >>> Within reason, of course. :-)
> >>>
> >>> In any case, which specific ports are you worried about?
> >>>
> >>> -Dimitry
> >>>
> >>>  =20
> >>>      =20
> >> Here's the case and the three referenced commits:
> >>
> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D199265
> >>
> >> And I know the top-level dependency will now break other things because
> >> of a minor detail that the committer did not take into account... That
> >> said I don't know if any other dependencies on it exist (so therefore =
it
> >> might not break anything else - however I am fairly sure it wasn't
> >> checked by the committer because of the speed and absoluteness of the
> >> change) because I don't need it/use it myself... but that is not the
> >> point.  I was 'just lucky' to come across this change process as I was
> >> not looking for anything, just happened to be in the right place at the
> >> right time to see it, and considering the hoops use plebs (those witho=
ut
> >> the commit bit) have to jump through I thought it was rather ironic th=
at
> >> 3 separate ports were changed, no testing was recorded in the PR as we
> >> the plebs are required to do, no patches uploaded as we the plebs have
> >> to do and no review as we the plebs have to have...=20
> >>
> >>    =20
> > do you appear to know the said ports were broken (segfault) at startup =
because
> > of various libssl mixup, they have been tested and fixed. if another is=
sue
> > appears on those ports I will fix them.
> >  =20
> I'm guessing you missed the '--use-ldap' in the top level dependency...=
=20
> I'm assuming you know there are issues with openldap and the use base vs
> use ports issue... particularly with dependent ports and incompatible
> options... your 'fix' quite possibly fixed one problem and caused
> another (not your fault as it happens - but an unintended consequence of
> an unchecked change... if you want to bring order and stability this is
> not the way to proceed.  (That said neither is laborious change control
> and peer review, but some is needed and the rules should apply to
> everyone or there will be more chaos.))

I haven't missed the --use-ldap dependency, openldap does respect USE_OPENS=
SL as
well so even if the situation is quite "broken" dealing with openssl, my co=
mmit
reduces the inpact on seafile.

In fact what I am working on is enforcing openssl (or libressl at user choi=
ce)
=66rom ports directly (which is why I worked on the ports in the first plac=
e -
after someone complained on IRC that one month after the ticket being creat=
ed
nothing happened).

Best regards,
Bapt

--3O1VwFp74L81IIeR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlWr1bsACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ezx1ACfc7S2FhIGH2nSIp3mwTINiqdG
QX4AnioQoL2sKs4gNH23pjnyDXO0x1UR
=Yvlx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3O1VwFp74L81IIeR--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150719165211.GE50618>