Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:59:32 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@anongoth.pl>, "Tobias C. Berner" <tcberner@gmail.com> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r505045 - head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard Message-ID: <8eab69dc-52bb-a187-6a30-565ae58f4512@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20190624202703.GA68048@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl> References: <201906241810.x5OIAu1h080487@repo.freebsd.org> <CAOshKtcPHHa4%2Bv2kL_aNKXzoXs1VkGw0nEAx3PkaArPJ6kCGzw@mail.gmail.com> <20190624194627.GB49520@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl> <CAOshKtegUmUYfdnDNmt9wuk1cSC_z_qpz8td597zC4y3Dup_-w@mail.gmail.com> <20190624202703.GA68048@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25/06/2019 6:27 am, Piotr Kubaj wrote: > OK, for me maintainer-feedback entry means that the patch is accepted. > > When I wasn't a committer, I used to set maintainer-feedback to indicate > that I accept the patch. When I send PR's nowadays, some maintainers > also do that. > > On 19-06-24 21:54:56, Tobias C. Berner wrote: >> I set maintainer feedback, because I, as the maintainer gave you the >> feedback, that "I think this is wrong" :) >> If I liked that patch, I would have set the patch-approved flag on it. >> >> >> All that said, thanks for "fixing" it, but I still would prefer a real >> fix, >> that we can upstream rather than that. >> >> >> mfg Tobias >> >> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 21:46, Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@anongoth.pl> wrote: >> >>> Oh, I didn't use "implicit". Doesn't maintainer-feedback + mean that >>> it's >>> accepted? >>> >>> On 19-06-24 21:34:09, Tobias C. Berner wrote: >>> >Moin moin >>> > >>> >Sorry, but I explicitely did not approve this :) so using implicit >>> on it, >>> >is a bit of a crappy move. >>> > >>> >mfg Tobias >>> > >>> >On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Author: pkubaj >>> >> Date: Mon Jun 24 18:10:55 2019 >>> >> New Revision: 505045 >>> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/505045 >>> >> >>> >> Log: >>> >> sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard: fix build with GCC-based architectures >>> >> >>> >> Link with libinotify explicitly to fix linking on GCC >>> architectures. >>> >> >>> >> PR: 238702 >>> >> Approved by: tcberner (maintainer, mentor) >>> >> >>> >> Modified: >>> >> head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile >>> >> >>> >> Modified: head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile >>> >> >>> >> >>> ============================================================================== >>> >>> >> --- head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile Mon Jun 24 >>> 18:07:12 2019 >>> >> (r505044) >>> >> +++ head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile Mon Jun 24 >>> 18:10:55 2019 >>> >> (r505045) >>> >> @@ -23,5 +23,6 @@ OPTIONS_SUB= yes >>> >> >>> >> INOTIFY_DESC= Filesystem alteration notifications using >>> inotify >>> >> INOTIFY_LIB_DEPENDS= libinotify.so:devel/libinotify >>> >> +INOTIFY_LDFLAGS= -linotify >>> >> >>> >> .include <bsd.port.mk> What could we (bugmeister) name the flag so that it was clear that a) The flag is about needing feedback b) The flag has nothing to do with / does not mean approval?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8eab69dc-52bb-a187-6a30-565ae58f4512>