On 17 July 2011 01:47, Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 07/16/2011 17:35, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: >>> If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs? >>> >>> Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I missed >>> something? >> >> In a perfect world we'd have -exp runs for everything, I suppose. OTOH >> here in the real world there's plenty of lower-risk changes that can be >> done without. If in doubt, we can always do one. >> >> Take a look a the various commits in ports/Mk for examples of what's >> been done in the past. > > A) If the file is unconditionally included the idea of administrative > separation is false security. There is no reason that the appropriate > perl folks can't have permission to twiddle that stuff in bpm. > > B) Focusing on this part of the problem detracts from the more important > point that the thing should be conditionally included, and that whatever > needs to be fixed to make that happen should be fixed. >
Doug, Am I right in thinking from your comments in the past that you would be willing to form a team to achieve this goal? I think you're right, and it should be done -- count me in. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
