Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 14:07:03 -0600 From: Karl Denninger <karl@Denninger.Net> To: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> Cc: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/15822: Update port misc/HomeDaemon to V0.99 Message-ID: <20000101140703.C7428@Denninger.Net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000101141418.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM>; from Will Andrews on Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 02:14:18PM -0500 References: <20000101121727.A35145@Denninger.Net> <XFMail.000101141418.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 02:14:18PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
> On 01-Jan-00 Karl Denninger wrote:
> > You never retrieved the port, you never looked it, you took a look ONLY at
> > the shar file and made your call - without examining the evidence.
>
>The port can be viewed in the shar you attached. Perhaps you meant that I never
>retreived the distfile? In that case, you would be correct.
Yep. It was obvious from your response (not to mention that I have the
server logfiles right here and can look to see if that UNIQUE link, which is
not listed anywhere on my site, has been hit).
>In any case, I still think that where possible, hier should be followed. I have
>patched many programs to force them to conform to hier through gcc -D, which is
>why I suggested using #defines and such. (Note: It was JUST a suggestion, you
>needed only provide a reason why that suggestion couldn't be used and the topic
>would then proceed to a better solution, which can of course be your original
>port!)
>
> I didn't really mean to put this up as a "roadblock" of a sort, but rather as
> something to point out. Like, maybe you forgot to take hier into account?
> People are human, after all.. (and I've made many mistakes myself)
I'm quite aware of hier(7). I've only been at this since long before 3.0, a
good part of that time in a very-commercial context.
> > You don't. It has external dependancies, among other things, and further
> > it has location-specific data that the user will be VERY unhappy to lose
> > down the road. THAT was the reason for not putting it in "share"
> > originally (to isolate both its DEPENDANTS *AND* the localized stuff).
>
> Dependent software should be installed independently.. the ports collection
> takes to doing things this way. If you have software that this program is
> dependent on but is not part of this program's distribution, you should make
> separate ports for those programs/libraries, and use the appropriate
> LIB_DEPENDS, BUILD_DEPENDS, and/or RUN_DEPENDS. This way you can place them in
> separate ${PREFIX}/share/* directories and thus isolate them.
I CAN'T DO THAT. Again, Will, its ALL in the README file, but you NEVER
LOOKED. The bottom line here is that the dependancy CANNOT be built as a
port due to license issues (it CANNOT be redistributed by COMMERCIAL sites,
*EVEN IF THEY ARE OPERATING NON-PROFIT*, without a WRITTEN waiver from the
author.)
This ignores the very real issue that Dan Lancini has the file published as
a TEXT file on his web server, with no Makefile and its ALSO not complient
with FreeBSD's "version mandatory" formatting, so I can't build a port tree
that will WORK to retrieve it *EVEN IF I WANTED TO*.
You proceed from the false assumption that I was shooting from the hip and
sending things in without thinking. I was NOT. It is not my job to
do what should have been done - which is look at the code, look at the
files, grab the distribution and check it out - BEFORE raising objections.
> Geez, if you're going to interpret my messages this hard, you need some valium
> or something. My comments ARE JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL, and you are blowing
> the whole thing WAY OUT OF PROPORTION!
ASSUMING that the person submitting something is stupid is *not* blowing
things out of proportion. Its real.
> I am not being a snit. I am trying to help you make a port that will benefit
> others in the FreeBSD community. You seem to be taking my point of view
> harshly, and your reaction is certainly not necessary. All I ever wanted from
> you was an explanation why your port breaks hier. I never, EVER, not ONCE
> _rejected_ your port! Merely, I was just trying to provide another point of
> view, so that you could consider improving your port or defending your version
> of it. You are not on trial here, remember.. you're just here to show us (well
>at the very least myself) why your port as you've presented it is what should be
>committed to the tree, and why it cannot/shouldn't be made to conform to hier.
I should not have to defend anything *unless* you've actually *looked at it*
before passing judgment.
I'm perfectly happy to defend things that I haven't explained in the content
of the package *ITSELF*. But to ask me to basically post the entire README
file, when the instructions for posting a new port EXPLICITLY tell you NOT
to do that, is insane.
That's why the port *has to be out there* on a repository BEFORE you send in
the pr asking it to be added! Dump it in a directory and type *make* and
you will have all your answers!
> By all means no one here is going to reject your port if you are willing to
> consider other people's point of view and provide an explanation for why you
> did something this way or that instead of doing it the usual way. Just as I
> have taken much pain to point this out to you..
>
> All this controversy makes me wonder if you read the "Making a port yourself"
> section of the Handbook at all.
Here we go.... treehouse time once again (yes, I do know how to read, thank
you very much, and if you've followed this discussion you'd quickly come to
that conclusion since I implicitly referenced the "testing recommendations"
when I was talking about getting burned by the CONSEQUENCES of following
the Handbook's demands vis-a-vis port requirements)
> I still can't believe you derided everyone here as a "little group" and by
> implying that our "treehouse" is full of elitists. Because in fact, we are all
> human just like yourself.
Will, you may not be aware of this, but not all that long ago (like less
than two years back) I very nearly did a Theo and split off another branch
of BSD from the FreeBSD project.
The controversy that caused that little incident was very much part of
the "treehousing" nonsense that I speak of.
Going after someone's design decisions without even LOOKING AT the source
code in question or even the README file that explains much of it, and doing
an investigation is a very real issue and problem.
I've said my peace, you've said yours. Steve has said he wants to look at
the port, possibly comment on it, and move it towards being committed.
All well and good - and more importantly, he DID grab the distribution.
THAT, Will, is the salient difference.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
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?20000101140703.C7428>