Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:47:45 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r370411 - head/sysutils/e2fsprogs Message-ID: <5434DE11.3030205@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54348D3C.6080600@FreeBSD.org> References: <201410072343.s97Nhkgo093413@svn.freebsd.org> <54348726.1080004@FreeBSD.org> <54348D3C.6080600@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 08.10.2014 um 03:02 schrieb Bryan Drewery: > On 10/7/2014 7:36 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 10/7/2014 6:43 PM, Matthias Andree wrote: >>> Author: mandree >>> Date: Tue Oct 7 23:43:46 2014 >>> New Revision: 370411 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/370411 >>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r370411/ >>> >>> Log: >>> Mark broken everywhere, upstream bug (already reported). >>> To avoid PORTEPOCH/rollback-and-forth-again, let's give upstream a few >>> days for a fix before rolling back to 1.42.10. >> >> This is horrible. We're providing no packages for any branch now to >> avoid bumping a metadata counter? >> >> > > Unfortunately poudriere does not care that this is BROKEN. It reads > PKGVERSION, sees it is newer, deletes the old package, then finally > finds it should IGNORE it. > > A bug in poudriere sure. Not so fast. This is not something that poudriere could "decide" on its own. Actually, there is a matter of context and perhaps policy. Consider: is the port broken but the old version is fine and the solver of pkg finds it sufficient to go with all other packages, then leaving the old package in place would work. If, however, the old version of some port were to be vulnerable, and the current version were known to not fix the vuln', then poudriere would have done the right thing by removing the BROKEN/FORBIDDEN/... package.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5434DE11.3030205>