From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 19 15:15:31 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981B81065676 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:15:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524EF8FC1A for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:15:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywo32 with SMTP id 32so2625935ywo.13 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Hyv9dh5mGwcdMBJAOpZG2i8ACjKNQRk/fYkqUrUd4js=; b=AoVK0/3AwfzVtakJwVlr03ux/xNDQL9cdFHY6bxQeuGzqXtDw7XRzYI2PSBhEVgQZx YeFW5uK/qh5pGUfhCgjBFx/uQoviURfcVCGjhMbRgoRjfoP+gVQf/wTbA8GZLjrQ5sD4 CQejdxxgYGzlU/KAIDDjEDW+JWahUjmfqHeHU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.176.33 with SMTP id a21mr8138462yhm.108.1313766930490; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.182.77 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.182.77 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E4CBBEE.4040302@FreeBSD.org> References: <201108171436.p7HEaNYQ071778@fire.js.berklix.net> <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com> <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E4CBBEE.4040302@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:15:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Matthias Andree Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/diskcheckd needs fixing and a maintainer X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:15:31 -0000 On 18 Aug 2011 08:15, "Matthias Andree" wrote: > > Am 18.08.2011 08:20, schrieb Chris Rees: > > On 18 August 2011 09:03, wrote: > >> Chris Rees wrote: > >> > >>> We don't want to provide broken software. > >> > >> Mark Linimon wrote: > >> > >>> ... it's obsolete, broken, junk ... > >> > >> Unless there is more to this than is reported in those two PRs, > >> I'd call it a considerable exaggeration to describe diskcheckd > >> as "broken". > >> > >> * http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/115853 > >> is shown as "closed", so presumably is no longer a problem. > > > > Wow, would it have been too difficult to actually READ the closing > > message from Jeremy? I suggest you look again -- I've pasted it here > > so you can see it. > > > > "The problem here is that the code does not do what the manpage says (or > > vice-versa). The 3rd column does not specify frequency of checking, but > > rather, over what duration of time to spread a single disk scan over. > > Thus, 7 days would mean "spread the entire disk check at X rate over the > > course of 7 days". There is still a bug in the code where large disks > > will cause problems resulting in updateproctitle() never getting called, > > and so on, but that's unrelated to this PR. I'm closing the PR because > > trying to fix all of this should really be ben@'s responsibility. > > (Sorry for sounding harsh.)" > > > > How does that indicate it's fixed? It's an 'abandoned' PR. > > This would be a case for marking it suspended (or possibly analyzed, > depending on which of these two fits best), rather than closing it. > The status is also a statement... > > > Thank you for testing and investigating, this is what the port has > > needed, and two days of being deprecated has achieved more than 18 > > months of a PR being open. > > So the bottom line for this case is, we sometimes only get sufficient > attention through deprecating ports. Unfortunately that approach might > wear off some day. Too bad. :-( I don't see how, ignoring a PR, nothing happens. Ignore a depreciation, port dies! Let's get this straight, I was not 'attracting attention', I was saying 'I'm going to remove this port; it's been broken for over a year.' > Do we need a "think twice before adding a port" habit? Yes. Of course, these aren't pointless ports however; while still developed and maintained they were once useful. It's time to go when they break and bitrot. Chris