On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 8:13 AM Kevin Oberman <rkober...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 7:31 AM Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> From: Stefan Bethke <stb_at_lassitu.de> wrote on >> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 07:04:11 UTC : >> >> > every time I submit a PR to update a port I maintain, I get conflicting >> instructions about how to fill in the PR. This is really annoying, and some >> committers apparently feel they will not move forward in processing the PR >> unless some bureaucratic bullshit is done. >> > >> > Can the ports team please provide a concise, definitive list on how a >> maintainer is supposed to fill in a port update PR, so this nonsense stops? >> >> It might be useful to report the specific conflicting instructions >> that you have received and to ask that the "definitive list" at least >> resolve the specific conflicts. Otherwise the list might miss some >> issues that you ran into. Right now there is no way for someone >> generating a list to know up front if they have covered all your >> example issues. >> >> === >> Mark Millard >> marklmi at yahoo.co <http://yahoo.com>m > > > This is an old issue. Many years ago I submitted a new port for the weird > modem in an IBM ThinkPad. The committer who picked up the ticket insisted > that some scripting involved be rewritten in Perl. I did so and finally got > the port committed. Less than two weeks later it was announced that perl > would be removed from the base system and that port scripts needed to be > converted to sh. While I applaud the removal of perl, I asked what the > "rules" were for structuring a port. Never got an answer. At least we now > have portlint that eliminates a lot of these issues. > This does not relate. The OP is talking about bureaucratic load filling the PR, not technical issues with the port itself. > -- > Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer > E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com > PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 >
