Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:46:26 -0700 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0? Message-ID: <20110929134626.8c019ef1.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110929094733.GS5495@droso.net> References: <20110929084725.GN91943@hoeg.nl> <20110929094733.GS5495@droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:47:33 +0200 Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something > > like this? > > > If we're not going to fiddle with auto* so close to a release date, we > certainly are not going to fiddle with the whole ports infrastructure > that affects even more ports, especially not for a workaround that only > affects CURRENT users. Ports on CURRENT is only provided on a best > effort basis and its users are expected to be techically savvy enough to > work around these kinds of issues themselves. > > We can always use more eyes on 9.0-BETA3 and as HEAD hasn't diverged > that much, it would be nice if people installed the beta and reported > any bugs found there. > The question is why we're not going to fiddle with auto* given other stuff which is being committed to the ports tree right now, which is unrelated to release as well? The fix can be added unconditionaly, thus having a very low (I'd say negligible) risk of breaking anything. In the meantime, if we don't fix this we're making it impossible for any HEAD users to do any kind of productive work in ports. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110929134626.8c019ef1.stas>