From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Mar 31 15:58:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00776 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:58:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA00770 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:58:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06658; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:57:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Yest one more: devel/crosssco In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:00:00 PST." Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:57:39 -0800 Message-ID: <6654.891388659@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I agree. The way I viewed it (obviously mistaken here) is that a developer > of a package can look at the output and suggest a course of action. Yes, you were unfortunately mistaken. A given developer _can_ look at the output and suggest a course of action, but far more frequently doesn't have time to actually do so and hence your approach is one that generates too low of a rate of return for the effort expended. A failure report _with_ an attached diff to fix it, implying a far more in-depth analysis of the error, at least, even if the fix turns out to be incorrect, is what will most effectively catch the attention of the overworked developers we have these days. > Instead I got a (useful) lecture on how out of date my system is. Yeah, well, that's what happens when you take the wrong approach - people pick out whatever requires the least work in your message to respond to. :-) Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message