Let's play "let's pretend".
Let's pretend I'n on the ports management team (true).
Let's pretend I have enough influence to talk the rest of the ports
management team into agreeing with me (very debatable, based on past
performance.)
Then, let's pretend that portmgr promotes a new policy, "all P
Eitan Adler wrote:
> > I've been told that we shouldn't be looking for reasons
> > to save any unmaintained port,
>
> What you have been told is "no-one steps up to (a) fix the
> problem, (b) take maintainership and (c) _continue_ with
> maintainership ...
>
> If you are stepping up to do the wor
On 27 Apr 2011 21:04, "Mikhail T." wrote:
>> cvs's Attic can be easily restored if people take up the slack. I see
>> no reason to change this policy
>
> No, not easily. It requires the CVS tree, which is not automatically
installed.
What are you on about? Just do an anonymous checkout, like ever
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:42:26 -0700
Charlie Kester articulated:
> On Wed 27 Apr 2011 at 16:15:19 PDT Jerry wrote:
> >
> >Following through on that logic, only the highest priority items
> >would ever get done. Since there is a never ending list of things
> >that have to be done at any given time,
The "netpbm-10.35.80_2" port won't build. There is a notation that the
previous version has to be removed first. I saw something here a few
days ago regarding that problem. Is the recommended method to do a
"make deinstall && make reinstall" to get the updated port installed? I
know that portupgrad
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:49:12AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> The "netpbm-10.35.80_2" port won't build. There is a notation that the
> previous version has to be removed first. I saw something here a few
> days ago regarding that problem. Is the recommended method to do a
> "make deinstall && make reins
As far i understand original Todd's message to ports@ is in moderation stage, so
i forward his (forwarded) message by myself. Tomorrow i faced with the fact that
packetstormsecurity.nl that goes first in our MASTER_SITE_PACKETSTORM isn't
avalaible, so i request packetstorm people about it's stat
Am 28.04.2011 00:39, schrieb John Marino:
> I was working the assumption that he agrees to the port up front or
> voluntarily picks up the next task. However, if someone has a repeated
> history of refusals or only wants to do a very narrow set of tasks, then
> maybe commit bit removal isn't that
Am 28.04.2011 01:25, schrieb Jerry:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:54:45 +0200
> Olli Hauer articulated:
>
>> Maybe you have some time to spend?
>
> Before I could reasonable be expected to set aside time, I would need a
> detailed job description, etcetera. Perhaps you can supply me with one?
See, a
Am 27.04.2011 13:54, schrieb Jerry:
> Personally, I believe that the current system, if not partially broken,
> is far from ideal. I would prefer to see a system where each submitted
> PR is assigned a specific number (I believe it is actually) and then
> assigned in numeric order to the next avai
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:02:29PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
Hi Ruslan, Todd,
> As far i understand original Todd's message to ports@ is in moderation stage,
> so
> i forward his (forwarded) message by myself. Tomorrow i faced with the fact
> that
> packetstormsecurity.nl that goes fi
If memory serves me right, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 07:15:07AM -0700, spotter wrote:
>> I am having the exact same problem with a brand new FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE
>> install and a fresh squeezeboxserver (v7.5.3) port build.
>> (Slimserver was working fine under FreeBSD 6.2, until
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it committers have commit
privilege for all ports. What if certain qualified port maintainers who
aren't committers were nevertheless given commit access for only the leaf
ports that they maintain? Wouldn't that speed up the overall process?
--
.O. |
On 28 Apr 2011 20:08, "Chip Camden" wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it committers have commit
> privilege for all ports. What if certain qualified port maintainers who
> aren't committers were nevertheless given commit access for only the leaf
> ports that they maintain?
On 28 April 2011 20:23, Chris Rees wrote:
>
> On 28 Apr 2011 20:08, "Chip Camden" wrote:
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it committers have commit
>> privilege for all ports. What if certain qualified port maintainers who
>> aren't committers were nevertheless given commit acc
28.04.2011 22:57, Erwin Lansing пишет:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:02:29PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
Hi Ruslan, Todd,
As far i understand original Todd's message to ports@ is in moderation stage, so
i forward his (forwarded) message by myself. Tomorrow i faced with the fact that
packets
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:05:22 +0200
Matthias Andree articulated:
> Am 28.04.2011 01:25, schrieb Jerry:
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:54:45 +0200
> > Olli Hauer articulated:
> >
> >> Maybe you have some time to spend?
> >
> > Before I could reasonable be expected to set aside time, I would
> > need
Jerry,
I realize that you care deeply about this topic, however IMO your last
few posts are a little more vitriolic than we we usually like to see on
the FreeBSD lists. (And yes, I'm sure your response would be that this
is not how they were intended, so I'll save you time writing it.)
You n
Am 28.04.2011 21:55, schrieb Jerry:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:05:22 +0200
> Matthias Andree articulated:
>
>> Am 28.04.2011 01:25, schrieb Jerry:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:54:45 +0200
>>> Olli Hauer articulated:
>>>
Maybe you have some time to spend?
>>>
>>> Before I could reasonable be exp
Am 28.04.2011 21:07, schrieb Chip Camden:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it committers have commit
> privilege for all ports. What if certain qualified port maintainers who
> aren't committers were nevertheless given commit access for only the leaf
> ports that they maintain? Woul
--On April 28, 2011 10:52:32 PM +0200 Matthias Andree
wrote:
Am 28.04.2011 21:07, schrieb Chip Camden:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it committers have commit
privilege for all ports. What if certain qualified port maintainers who
aren't committers were nevertheless given comm
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:23:23AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Maybe, if maintainer can "somehow easily" become ports committer,
> this hurdle might be lower ?
This has been discussed before. The barrier to entry is currently set
at the "seems to be willing to work on FreeBSD over a period of man
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:55:35PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> Would you please rewrite it in basic English using proper sentence
> structure.
Please note: although the primary language of the project is English,
probably less than half of FreeBSD committers are native Enligsh speakers.
See ports/xearth
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:20:28AM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:49:12AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > The "netpbm-10.35.80_2" port won't build. There is a notation that the
> > previous version has to be removed first. I saw something here a few
> > days ago regarding that p
24 matches
Mail list logo
