Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:07:27 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New port with maintainer ports@FreeBSD.org [was: Question about maintainers] Message-ID: <0EB20BCBD44B0B602ECD6117@utd59514.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <42E94487.6090909@exit.com> References: <C3B81AFDB8A5DFB5AB566CC4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <42E81050.7090305@cs.tu-berlin.de> <66A226C3557B48ED535E3FED@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <20050727230523.GB54954@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728154248.GA943@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20050728164111.GA66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <42E917BA.10406@exit.com> <FACB47A35BF38243FBC04766@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <42E94487.6090909@exit.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Thursday, July 28, 2005 13:48:07 -0700 Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: > > Let's look at what I wrote in my "last paragraph." I said: > > I _certainly_ think that a port submitted with a maintainer of > 'ports@freebsd.org' should hit the bit bucket immediately and > never see the light of day. If it's important enough to submit, > it should be important enough to maintain. > > Now correct me if I'm wrong, but tcl, itcl, tk and iwidgets were already > in ports, were they not? So they could not possibly have been "submitted > with a maintainer of 'ports@freebsd.org.'" Of course, this is not to say > that you should not have been the stuckee for those ports. If you > learned enough to update them, you probably learned enough to continue to > maintain them. (You may not have had the _time_ to maintain them, but > that's an entirely different issue.) > > Quite honestly, if you were to feel intimidated, that's _your_ problem. > If you feel too intimidated to take something on, then don't do so, but > also don't complain that it hasn't been addressed. > I'm not sure why you're being so obtuse. I am not complaining. I'm simply saying that if we no longer allow ports with a maintainer of ports, there are problems that will arise that need to be thought through. Obviously, if I *really* felt intimidated, I wouldn't be submitting the ports, would I? But not everyone is quite as ambitious as I am, and some might actually not bother to ever submit a port if they had to create or fix others to get theirs working. If the goal is to have working ports for the community, then ISTM that there should not be rules in place that *discourage* new port submitters from even trying. > > Believe me, that situation would have been preferable the content of this > thread. As far as the package itself is concerned, I honestly don't > care. If I _did_ care, though, I would do something about it, either > privately or in public, and I would do my damnedest to adhere to > professional standards. I wouldn't whine about how doing it right is too > "intimidating." > I wasn't whining. You should have recognized that. > > Ultimately, this is a tempest in a teapot. If you can't maintain those > ports, you can't, and no amount of browbeating is going to change that. > On the other hand, don't expect the FreeBSD folks to change their policy > just to make you feel better. Gee, and here I thought we were actually trying to *encourage* people to adopt ports. Silly me. Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0EB20BCBD44B0B602ECD6117>