pkgsrc-Changes archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang/racket-textual

John Marino <> writes:

> On 9/24/2012 13:18, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> Module Name: pkgsrc
>> Committed By:        asau
>> Date:                Mon Sep 24 11:18:38 UTC 2012
>> Modified Files:
>>      pkgsrc/lang/racket-textual: Makefile
>> Log Message:
>> Revert changes that make no sense.
>> To generate a diff of this commit:
>> cvs rdiff -u -r1.11 -r1.12 pkgsrc/lang/racket-textual/Makefile
>> Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the
>> copyright notices on the relevant files.
> Translation: Alexsej just changed all the "{}" back to "()" for
> no benefit, and to apparently to intentionally cause pkglint to
> generate warnings for the reason I can only speculate that he
> thinks pkglint should not classify "()" as an error.
> This revert had no justification and it makes the pkgsrc
> Makefile worse (same story with lang/racket).   This is
> irresponsible.  For a lesser extent, OBATA Akio pointed me to
> commit guidelines that said one should avoid reverting commits
> of other developers and that was violated as well.
> Apparently there's no point on using pkglint, at least on
> packages that asau has interest in.

This reversion has benefit to me as maintainer at the very least.

pkglint is broken, and I have raised this problem previously.
First and the biggest problem with pkglint is that it insist on
undocumented rules with unclear reasoning (sometimes harmful ones)
which brings it into category of "probably good, if used with care"
at most rather than a tool to remove mistakes.
Thus instead of following all pkglint suggestions blindly, please,
think about the reasoning behind all what happens there.

You have not consulted with me about changing these packages, even though
I maintain them and I use them. In addition, there're more packages that
follow these. All that you have made is introduction of pointless and
harmful (at least, potentially) changes that cause problems to me as
package maintainer.

The same applies to using non-tested JPEG library (I have never tested
Racket with that another option and have no time to test it for now)
and using LOCALBASE (which is dubious change as well, though it might
have some sense which is why I didn't revert it).

It is not the first time you introduce changes that have very little
reason behind them (if any at all), sometimes they have only aesthetic
value and sometimes are just harmful ad-hockery. In future, please,
provide clear reasoning. Otherwise, I'll have to revert non-functional
changes that get in a way rather than serve any purpose in packages
I maintain.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index