Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:36:30 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going? Message-ID: <20040109003630.GA63979@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040108173642.GS54743@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> References: <3FFC03E5.7010305@iconoplex.co.uk> <200401071429.i07ETZMI068819@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20040107200838.GD86935@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <20040108071730.GA53328@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040108173642.GS54743@freepuppy.bellavista.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # kris@obsecurity.org / 2004-01-07 23:17:31 -0800: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > >=20 > > > 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 fo= ur > > > months (2003/09/07-today), ports tree has been completely open > > > for whopping 28 days. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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. Repo-copies are not allowed during the freeze, but are any other time. > > > Porter's handbook, and FDP Primer, while valuable (esp. the forme= r) > > > leave many questions unanswered. (I'm not going to further this > > > rant, but will gladly provide feedback to anyone who asks.) > >=20 > > I would have thought the procedure to rectify this would be obvious: >=20 > The procedure really is obvious, but there's only so much time in a > day. >=20 > 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? No, please raise this on the ports list. Kris --BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE//feOWry0BWjoQKURAm4aAKCrt+w5+VVrlF2blvtk2AkxJdcDagCgms7A +sReGul/MIFTzxWr9tTnU6o= =g9VP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040109003630.GA63979>