Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:06:47 +0200 From: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unifying WWW: pkg-descr lines for cpan ports Message-ID: <20050911090647.GD69537@droso.net> In-Reply-To: <20050910235330.GB19364@soaustin.net> References: <200509102222.j8AMMubj032724@bright.research.att.com> <432368BC.5000306@FreeBSD.org> <20050910235330.GB19364@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--BkEY3RoTgCMsaH6y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:53:30PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 04:14:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > I respectfully disagree with Erwin, given that this change (at least th= e=20 > > first group) won't alter how anything works, I think it should be done= =20 > > ASAP. >=20 > My personal interpretation of the "sweeping changes" rule is that it is > primarily designed to keep the current ports dependency tree as close as > lock-step to the packages that have already been built to go on the CDs. > So, if a tag has to slip on port X, we don't also have to slip tags on N > different dependent ports -- or, in the degenerate case, re-freeze the > tree and rebuild all the packages. (I hope everyone can agree that we do > not want to do that!) >=20 > As well, things that change shared library revisions or meta-things > like KDE/GNOME/X are kept the same for similar reasons. >=20 > So under this interpretation, I would agree with Doug that this change > would be ok. >=20 > Any of the other portmgr members have an opinion? >=20 I guess we need a clearer definition of what a "sweeping" change is. Under a strict definition, which I applied here, anything touching more than a few ports should wait. However, with the number of freezes and thus slushes we have right now due to the number of releases per year, I think we should be more lax than that and allow non-functional changes to go in, like pkg-descr and maintainer changes. The downside of this, is that such a fuzzy definition will get misinterpreted, with all the consequenses and discussions afterwards. -erwin --=20 Erwin Lansing DISCLAIMER: No electrons were harmed while sending this message. --BkEY3RoTgCMsaH6y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD4DBQFDI/Onqy9aWxUlaZARAtDqAJwN0AEabQNORjET9yMgZ551I/TIvQCYmwVb lX3zL0h9q+YOTBYw7flwrA== =/xJl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BkEY3RoTgCMsaH6y--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050911090647.GD69537>