Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:23 +1100 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/rdesktop pkg-plist Message-ID: <20050311003023.GH1118@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <20050310235755.GB58785@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200503101905.j2AJ5B6R013928@repoman.freebsd.org> <42309B5B.7020201@FreeBSD.org> <20050310235755.GB58785@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:57:55PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > Have we become so process oriented that we've become paralyzed?? No. But due to the size of the framework, the (in)compatibility issues between different make(1)s and the lack of knowledge of Makefiles, the commiting of changes to bsd.port.mk has become more structured. This means that there will be sometimes a longer delay before changes get commited, but it also means that unambigious failures get caught before systems break. I agree that lack of knowledge of Makefiles shouldn't be a reason to delay things, but that's the current situation and that isn't something which is resolved easily. > Actually, yes we have. It boggles my mind where being a Ports Committer > in 1995 under Satoshi has turned into. It boggles my mind that a comment > fix to bsd.port.mk has to be run thru an experimental build. Yet portmgr Mine too. But with the current status, if they feel more comfortable with it, then who am I to complain about it? (I will complain, but I also won't hold it against them) > can't address issues of port stealing? No portmgr replied to the thread > when elk hijacked the 'bash' port from me. Two wrongs don't make it right. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050311003023.GH1118>