Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/security/sudo
To: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
From: Roland Illig <rillig@NetBSD.org>
Date: 10/26/2005 21:52:06
Quentin Garnier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 12:53:02PM +0000, Roland Illig wrote:
>>Module Name: pkgsrc
>>Committed By: rillig
>>Date: Fri Oct 7 12:53:02 UTC 2005
>> pkgsrc/security/sudo: Makefile
>>Fixed a pkglint warning.
> Shouldn't pkglint be fixed instead?
I don't think so. I have added the warning with a specific purpose: To
catch misspelled or superfluous instances where PKGREVISION is defined.
> (Note: this particular commit was annoying because besides fixing a
> non-existent issue
My change may not have fixed any bug per se. Nevertheless I felt a need
for this change because creating new packages is often done like taking
an existing Makefile and modifying it until it fits. That is, every
current package is possibly used as an example how to create a working
package. These examples (that is: every package) should not only work,
but should also represent the way new packages are intended to look
like. Specifically, I want the packages to "look good" and "feel good".
Just remember that NetBSD is said to be of high code quality.
> it broke consistency with the branch
Maybe I haven't taken the "best time" to apply this patch. Had it been
better applied shortly _before_ a branch instead of shortly _after_, to
minimize the probability of having to pull it up?
> which means it's not as easy to pull-up securtity-related changes.
> Sudo has bad history, it's not a reason to make things harder.)
I don't understand this "bad history". :(