From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 17 05:24:01 2009 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 3EC081065672 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:24:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212C88FC0A for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id B0C888C06D; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:24:00 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:24:00 -0600 From: Mark Linimon To: Robert Huff Message-ID: <20091217052400.GC32037@lonesome.com> References: <7314e5020912161917s355d02c9l16c996043c753044@mail.gmail.com> <19241.45040.505925.616766@jerusalem.litteratus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19241.45040.505925.616766@jerusalem.litteratus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: Kevin , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade failure 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: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:24:01 -0000 On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:13:36PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > The maintainer, ruby@, is aware of this; a check of the PR > database shows multiple open PRs, none critical but many serious > going back six months and more. As an aside, the Severity and Priority fields have been so often abused as to have become meaningless. Although I still try to groom the db for "critical" ones, and thus try to get those some attention, I really don't think the committers pay much attention. (In general I think those should be reserved for "data corruption" and "security".) The longer-term solution is to remove those as user-settable fields. > This hard to understand given portupgrade is the recommended upgrade > tool. Once the individual who was working on it gave it up to the mailing list, it became one of those "everyone is responsible so no one is responsible" problems. I don't have a recommended fix for this. Having said that, I have a ports tree as of a month ago and portupgrade was working ok for me. I don't have the cycles to go figure out where it fails to be able to fix it, sorry. mcl