Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 14:56:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: New patching policy proposal Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005141451020.10096-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <20000514144334.D82488@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 14 May 2000, Will Andrews wrote: > When source code patches are made, we should use #ifdef (or #ifndef) > __FreeBSD__ to select particular code sections for use under FreeBSD. If > this is done, we can try implementing a script or somesuch that will send > patches to development teams (based on Author email address links in > pkg/DESCR) that are ready to be applied to a certain distfile. This will, > hopefully, greatly reduce turnaround time in getting patches removed from > our repository and into distfiles. I think probably, most non-FreeBSD developers are going to regard nightly reminders of FreeBSD incompatibilities as spam, after the first one. This is going to cause some bad feelings. It's one thing to ask FreeBSD committers to look at things, but something totally different to ask it of others. Some authors may be willing to give out their email addresses on the FreeBSD port, thinking that they won't get bothered too much extra, and they'll just see this as good reason to revoke their email from any FreeBSD-related stuff. > > Of course, not all patches are source code patches. We also have Makefile, > configure, shell script, etc. patches. We can adopt different plans for > each kind of diff. Then, say somebody updates a port. A script that runs > (nightly? TBD) every so often will check the ports that have been changed > recently to see if any patches were added. Then it'll look up the Author > email address if available and automatically send these patches to that > email address, requesting a return reply to the port's maintainer as well > as ports@FreeBSD.org, in case said maintainer is inactive. > > What does everyone think on this one? Granted, it will take some time to > convert patches to conform to this sort of standard, but I'm sure that if > this is implemented, it will save a fair amount of time quadruply on > developers', committers', users', and maintainers' parts. You're trying to move work from FreeBSD committers to software authors, who don't have any strong reason to accept that. The great majority of those developers who WILL add the patches to their software, intend to wait until their next release, and will just get insulted at automated henpecking that they didn't sign up for. > > Respectfully, > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD, chuckr@picnic.mat.net | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005141451020.10096-100000>