From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 8 09:36:50 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF8716A4CE for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from lilith.bellavista.cz (bellavista.worldonline.cz [212.90.245.154]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD2243D54 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:36:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from neuhauser@bellavista.cz) Received: from freepuppy.bellavista.cz (freepuppy.bellavista.cz [10.0.0.10]) by lilith.bellavista.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2535B for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:36:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by freepuppy.bellavista.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 859582FDA10; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:36:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:36:42 +0100 From: Roman Neuhauser To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040108173642.GS54743@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <3FFC03E5.7010305@iconoplex.co.uk> <200401071429.i07ETZMI068819@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20040107200838.GD86935@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <20040108071730.GA53328@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040108071730.GA53328@xor.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:36:50 -0000 # kris@obsecurity.org / 2004-01-07 23:17:31 -0800: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > > The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or > > maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four > > months (2003/09/07-today), ports tree has been completely open > > for whopping 28 days. > > That might be technically true, but it's misleading and doesn't > support the point you're trying to make. During this period the ports > collection has only been frozen for a couple of weeks, and the > majority of commit activities were not restricted for the rest of the > period in question. That might be technically true, but the precise semantics of "(semi-)freeze" aren't as widely known as you seem to think. E. g. yesterday or today I received an email from a committer in response to my two mails to ports@ (the first urging a repocopy requested in a PR some time ago, the other retracting the request because of the freeze) saying (paraphrased) "to my surprise I was told repocopies are allowed during freeze". Some people just prefer to err on the safe side. > > Porter's handbook, and FDP Primer, while valuable (esp. the former) > > leave many questions unanswered. (I'm not going to further this > > rant, but will gladly provide feedback to anyone who asks.) > > I would have thought the procedure to rectify this would be obvious: The procedure really is obvious, but there's only so much time in a day. Also, I would have thought the Porter's handbook would e. g. contain info on preventing installation of .la files (I gathered from the ports@ list that they shouldn't be installed), isn't this lack quite obvious? -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message. see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html