On 07/17/2011 03:07, Chris Rees wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
> I think you're right, and it should be done -- count me in.
>
> Chris
>
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
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"
