tech-pkg archive

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

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/cad/simian-docs

On 5/20/2012 11:39, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:17:59AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
On 5/20/2012 11:09, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:

You don't address any problem, but are pulling an ostrich. Nothing here
is specific to DragonFly and shouldn't be committed as such.


Sure I did.
Upstream (pkgsrc) is not pruning these packages to our liking (a
problem), our objections were rejected (a problem), so we're
filtering them out downstream (problem solved).

The user complaints about "broken" packages are getting directed to
us, not pkgsrc, and that's also a problem that I just resolved
without affected any other platform.

I know that there are singular voices objecting the removal. I also
don't agree with them and it is obvious that any further discussion
about that is unlikely to resolve the issue. As such, it is the
responsiblity of the pkgsrc-pmc to resolve it. Your change doesn't fix
the problem (missing distfile) nor is the package broken, if the
distfile is around (e.g. for the various Intel firmware packages some
people do have them). I object to this change because it creates
pointless platform variations for no good reason. Lack of a clear policy
doesn't count.

To bring this issue forward, I put the following suggestion up for
decision making:

     Packages are to be removed from pkgsrc, when the distfiles are not
     distributable and cannot be obtained for a period of one full quarter
     branch. Packages with manual / interactive fetch must have a
     maintainer and it is his/her responsibility to ensure this.

pkgsrc-pmc is in CC.


A policy that like is reasonable and welcome, as it's clear and not subject to interpretation.

I just want to clarify above in case someone is coming into the conversation in the middle: 1) The package wasn't marked "broken", it was marked "NOT-FOR-PLATFORM+= DragonFly-*-*" 2) In the case that a DragonFly user has the distfile (e.g. the Intel firmware packages), they will be building from source since no binary packages are generated and as such are being notified that they need to comment out the NOT-FOR-PLATFORM line before manually installing the distfile. That's not too much to ask; they still have access to the package makefiles. 3) I wouldn't classify this as a "platform variation", we're simply masking it. I can't emphasize enough that it affects absolutely nobody outside of the DragonFly community.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index