Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> Cc: David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com>, "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing Message-ID: <52B2EECA.10908@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20131219135421.63d7cd20@X220.alogt.com> References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> <CAO%2BPfDfV6qdnNMgfrMDj=QumP4yc%2BRWUop_iNybTomObVwaAnA@mail.gmail.com> <20131219135421.63d7cd20@X220.alogt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote: > you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked > broken has to work. I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you from experience that this assumption is not valid. > So, the fault is on our side. Why should we spam > GNATS with our problem? > GNATS for confirmed problems, the list for anything else. Where is this cited? PRs are not for confirmed problems. They are for any problem. However, this kind of "confirmation" post is not the type of post I was complaining about. Unless your "confirmation" is no more than an except of a log, then it is. To iterate my opinion, if a breakage is a symptom of a systematic issue, or the port in question breaks like 6000 dependent ports, the ports@ is appropriate. If it's a single broken port, then a PR is appropriate. Alternatively, email the maintainer only. The majority of us on this list do not care about individual broken ports and getting a sent a log is noise at best. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52B2EECA.10908>