Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:26:44 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28 Message-ID: <20120730062644.26a06dfb@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20120730021945.GA32262@DataIX.net> References: <000601cd6a76$af1de6b0$0d59b410$@quicknet.nl> <50103781.8060904@FreeBSD.org> <20120725183432.4e73b434@scorpio> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1207281639520.97526@bcgv.qbhto.arg> <20120729074644.59db2447@scorpio> <5015BC5E.10501@FreeBSD.org> <20120729194907.39dda482@scorpio> <CAN6yY1sGDEghH%2BH4wGa=XznD3D_JeC9AdNErp9SD0zb7F62TxA@mail.gmail.com> <20120730021945.GA32262@DataIX.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/+Pc4MQ0SYLWaOB+LbMHpmoD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:19:45 -0400 Jason Hellenthal articulated: > Kevin sorry for posting this from your message "it had to go somewhere > since there was no such great message to reply to." not intended > directly toward anyone in general. >=20 > This thread has turned to nothing but obnoxious dribble of what used > to be a simple problem to solve. >=20 > All of the bash-* patches that were inquired about are important to > the user interface and some of them are directly related to most > everyone. Sorry, according to Doug, if it doesn't pertain to him then it is a useless patch and not worthy of inclusion into the present Bash port. =20 > ESPECIALLY $HOME/ expansiion if I might need to state one. >=20 > But let me state one thing here.... >=20 > Ports is a framework containing lots of development. And justly it > should not be judged that a port should not be upgraded because it > might introduce new bugs to a stable community. Well said -- paying attention Doug. Any patch can potentially introduce new or expose old problems with software. Refusing to try them is as ridiculous as a child refusing to eat peas because he/she thinks they aren't going to like them sans any actual, verifiable proof. =20 > Just because a port is being updated does not neccesarily mean that > end-user needs to update their local install. It does mean that if its > there it will get more exposure to further fixes... There are several > ports which go head -> head with the most current release that could > stand to not be updated quite so often. Again, well stated. > So for what its worth "Stop pu??y wiping ports!" especially when it > does not break the ports system itself. >=20 > All this written from mutt(1) ontop of bash(1) 4.2.37(0)-release since > Jul 17! Basically, that is exactly what I have been saying. The end user should be the one making the final decision, not some megalomaniac like Doug who feels his opinions are the only ones that count. By the way, I just noticed that "openssl-1.0.1_3" has been updated to "openssl-1.0.3_4". I wonder if the maintainer asked Doug's permission first. --=20 Jerry =E2=99=94 Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ --Sig_/+Pc4MQ0SYLWaOB+LbMHpmoD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQFmFyAAoJEF2rWD2do7dNfYkIALiQ07QGnDpRvY/TJyxYdu3t Kpz0VI82FcCbkSiOEhZlNXXtIJPIaBJBi4mNphotCvYvHMS9kEUSFHwnbznR8w2L DNOMa5x8Rx+mNm2DndXCbIodF71ijhL87fh3N/vNHy9vrkpccJhe+r3j4VX4i0ai hYjkKT1jv6h49WMp0elSB2YwfYtcoLRaW6bz5MxxhZBt46wgj09kgXSEnuxFHWwY LkLk7ZQCwfijfj4rga7SaBkGpmDWk8yK/YVVxaxIN+IWjkI8kG4rUlNkGViC73JI mnGtpngfjqmHdPqY4dHTPaHc93zyiscGX8z0AwVVmL6663+3fZK1QQTPpDAjVq4= =9loX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/+Pc4MQ0SYLWaOB+LbMHpmoD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120730062644.26a06dfb>