On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 14.08.2011 05:00, schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev:
> > Big +1 for Dmitry here; ports@ is perfectly fine maintainer entity, much
> > easier to work with, and often receives more and better care than many of
> > seemingly "properly" maint
On 2011-Aug-13 21:20:40 +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>You can't judge the quality of software by "it is maintained" or
>"it is the latest version" either, actually there is no corellation
>at all.
There is very little bug-free software available. And even if you
manage to find a piece of softw
* Matthias Andree (mand...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> Assuming that were true, how else do we make sure not to let rotten code
> linger in the ports tree?
There's no way, not even with "maintained" ports. "Rotten code"
doesn't build or doesn't work, is easily distinguished and should
obviously be mark
* Peter Jeremy (peterjer...@acm.org) wrote:
> There is very little bug-free software available. And even if you
> manage to find a piece of software that is bug-free, changes to its
> dependencies can introduce problems as interfaces change.
That is true for all ports. Maintained ones are not a
Am 14.08.2011 05:00, schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>> * Matthias Andree (mand...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>>> Possibly we should always mark ports for removal for three months after
>>> the point in time when the maintainer gets reset to po
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Matthias Andree (mand...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > Possibly we should always mark ports for removal for three months after
> > the point in time when the maintainer gets reset to ports@.
>
> Nice. Well that'll only result in two p
* Matthias Andree (mand...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > Maybe we should stop doing things that raise such discussions then?
>
> No. Such poking the sleeping is necessary to get action taken at all.
There should be a reason for taking action. There is none.
> > "Dead" means it doesn't build or doesn
Am 13.08.2011 15:37, schrieb Dmitry Marakasov:
> * Doug Barton (do...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
>> We've had this discussion about 6 times now.
>
> Maybe we should stop doing things that raise such discussions then?
No. Such poking the sleeping is necessary to get action taken at all.
Evidently it
* Doug Barton (do...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> We've had this discussion about 6 times now.
Maybe we should stop doing things that raise such discussions then?
> The community consensus is that we need to cull dead ports from
> the tree in order to reduce the maintenance burden and allow for
> more
On 08/12/2011 03:11, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> I suggest to change BROKEN to something like MASTER_SITES_DEAD
We've had this discussion about 6 times now. The community consensus is
that we need to cull dead ports from the tree in order to reduce the
maintenance burden and allow for more flexibili
* Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> That is not what there mirror is for, the mirror is there for some
> temporary upstream failure, to make sure that users will still have the
> distfile, not for definitive failure (upstream dead, or for distfile
> location/redirection changes).
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:33:28 +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Chris Rees (cr...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> You've marked many ports BROKEN for no reason, please revert -
distfiles
> for these ports are perfectly fetchable from FreeBSD mirror.
>
I think bapt's point is that it's ONLY fetchable from
On 12 August 2011 10:33, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Chris Rees (cr...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
>> > You've marked many ports BROKEN for no reason, please revert - distfiles
>> > for these ports are perfectly fetchable from FreeBSD mirror.
>> >
>>
>> I think bapt's point is that it's ONLY fetchable f
* Chris Rees (cr...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > You've marked many ports BROKEN for no reason, please revert - distfiles
> > for these ports are perfectly fetchable from FreeBSD mirror.
> >
>
> I think bapt's point is that it's ONLY fetchable from the FreeBSD
> mirror -- we're not project hosts, and
bf 2011-08-12 09:04:40 UTC
FreeBSD ports repository
Modified files:
cad/admesh Makefile
Log:
adjust FETCH_ARGS to accommodate redirects
used by master site
Revision ChangesPath
1.8 +1 -2 ports/cad/admesh/Makefile
___
On 11 August 2011 19:03, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
> (replying to random commit)
>
>> FreeBSD ports repository
>>
>> Modified files:
>> cad/admesh Makefile
>> Log:
>> Mark BROKEN: Does not fetch
>>
>> Revision Changes Pat
* Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote:
(replying to random commit)
> FreeBSD ports repository
>
> Modified files:
> cad/admesh Makefile
> Log:
> Mark BROKEN: Does not fetch
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.7 +2 -0 ports/cad/admesh/Makefile
You'v
bapt2011-08-02 09:42:01 UTC
FreeBSD ports repository
Modified files:
cad/admesh Makefile
Log:
Mark BROKEN: Does not fetch
Revision ChangesPath
1.7 +2 -0 ports/cad/admesh/Makefile
___
cvs-all@freebsd.
pgollucci2009-01-31 21:14:31 UTC
FreeBSD ports repository
Modified files:
cad/admesh Makefile pkg-descr
Log:
- Update download location, update WWW
Reported by:-fetch-original pointyhat run via pav
Revision ChangesPath
1.6 +1 -1 ports/ca
markus 2007-01-31 08:33:22 UTC
FreeBSD ports repository
Modified files:
cad/admesh Makefile
Log:
- Fix plist if NOPORTDOCS is defined
- Bump PORTREVISION
Revision ChangesPath
1.5 +3 -2 ports/cad/admesh/Makefile
_
20 matches
Mail list logo
