poudriere output:
[00:24:23] [09] [00:01:20] Saved devel/automake | automake-1.16.4 wrkdir to:
/usr/local/poudriere/data/wrkdirs/13_0R-CA72-default/default/automake-1.16.4.tbz
[00:24:23] [09] [00:01:20] Finished devel/automake | automake-1.16.4: Failed:
configure
. . .
logs/errors/automake-1.16
On 11/14/21 16:50, Dave Horsfall wrote:
[...]
First time I've heard POLA called that; I knew it as "... astonishment"
some decades ago (by Dr. John Lions; for all I know he could've coined it).
[...]
So I'm a decrepit old codger and my memory is going ... -- George
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021, George Mitchell wrote:
Perhaps I'm naïve, but to me the Principle of Least Amazement really
does completely cover the issues being raised here. Is it necessary to
complicate the situation any more than that? -- George
First time I've heard POLA called that; I knew it as
On 14/11/2021 16:56, Rob LA LAU wrote:
Thanks Ronald. But I'm not asking how or where to report bugs.
Allow me to rephrase my question.
If and when I am a FreeBSD port maintainer, can I just add any scripts
or other files to the port I maintain if I think they may be practical,
even if those
On 11/14/21 13:42, Guido Falsi wrote:
[...]
As I stated in another (provate message) I just realized that this is at
least partly covered by "POLA". [...]
Perhaps I'm naïve, but to me the Principle of Least Amazement really
does completely cover the issues being raised here. Is it necessary
t
Hi,
"Patches should only be applied to make the software run as intended by
its developer. All additional functionality should be integrated upstream
first or, if that's not possible or desirable, should be developed as a
separate project which can then be ported alongside the first port."
Thi
On 14/11/21 20:32, Rob LA LAU wrote:
And hi again,
On 14/11/2021 19:42, Guido Falsi wrote:
> IN fact I would very astonished if some port (say firefox for
example) started behaving very differently than it does on other OSes
for no good technical reason.
True.
But what if we're not talking
Hi!
> On 14/11/2021 19:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > I agree. The problem is that this is very difficult to codify
> > into some policy.
>
> I've done some digging. And actually, Fedora only needs a few words:
>
> "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment" [1]
>
> This assures that
And hi again,
On 14/11/2021 19:42, Guido Falsi wrote:
> IN fact I would very astonished if some port (say firefox for
example) started behaving very differently than it does on other OSes
for no good technical reason.
True.
But what if we're not talking about 'behaving very differently'. How
Hi again,
On 14/11/2021 19:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
I agree. The problem is that this is very difficult to codify
into some policy.
I've done some digging. And actually, Fedora only needs a few words:
"All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment" [1]
This assures that packages stay
NOTE replying with my FreeBSD.org address to make the reply reach the
mailing list, sorry my previous messages on this thread bounced.
On 14/11/21 19:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
It is also not correct to "commandeer" a port to force users on design
choices in conflict with the upstream project
Hi!
> > > It is also not correct to "commandeer" a port to force users on design
> > > choices in conflict with the upstream project.
> > Is there a section in the ports maintainers guide or somewhere
> > else that mandates this ?
> Sorry, my fault I did not make me clear maybe, this is all my o
Hi!
> It is also not correct to "commandeer" a port to force users on design
> choices in conflict with the upstream project.
Is there a section in the ports maintainers guide or somewhere
else that mandates this ?
--
p...@freebsd.org +49 171 3101372 Now what ?
Hi!
> As a port maintainer, can I just modify the functionality of the ports I
> maintain without any limits?
Like modifiying a port that does xyz to actually do the reverse ?
No, that would be crazy. Upstream and port users would probably
freak out, and rightly so.
> And as a software develope
Hi,
On 14/11/2021 16:54, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Maybe it makes it easier to understand if you tell us the port
in question ?
It won't actually, because I don't want to focus on this 1 buggy script
I found.
My question is not about a single bug in a single script. It's about
FreeBSD policy, tru
Thanks Ronald. But I'm not asking how or where to report bugs.
Allow me to rephrase my question.
If and when I am a FreeBSD port maintainer, can I just add any scripts
or other files to the port I maintain if I think they may be practical,
even if those files are not part of the upstream proje
Hi!
> On 14/11/2021 16:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > You can ask the maintainer if he wants to join upstream, but
> > if there's no interest, there's no need to pressure one into upstream 8-)
>
> Don't worry: I don't want to pressure anyone into doing anything. :)
>
> But I would like to know how m
Hi Kurt,
On 14/11/2021 16:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
You can ask the maintainer if he wants to join upstream, but
if there's no interest, there's no need to pressure one into upstream 8-)
Don't worry: I don't want to pressure anyone into doing anything. :)
But I would like to know how much functi
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 16:26:23 +0100, Rob LA LAU wrote:
Hello list,
I'm wondering what the rules/guidelines are for adding functionality to
a port, that is not in the upstream package. I can't find anything about
this in the porters' documentation.
Background:
I'm not a porter myself (plan
Hello,
> I'm wondering what the rules/guidelines are for adding functionality to a
> port, that is not in the upstream package. I can't find anything about
> this in the porters' documentation.
>
> Background:
> I'm not a porter myself (planning to be one, but that's irrelevant for my
> current q
Hello list,
I'm wondering what the rules/guidelines are for adding functionality to
a port, that is not in the upstream package. I can't find anything about
this in the porters' documentation.
Background:
I'm not a porter myself (planning to be one, but that's irrelevant for
my current quest
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you
22 matches
Mail list logo
