Hi, Reference: > From: Bryan Drewery <br...@shatow.net> > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:02:15 -0500 > Message-id: <503b6fd7.4060...@shatow.net>
Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 8/27/2012 7:40 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Brooks Davis wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:02:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >>> The old Makefile headers, ala: > >>> =20 > >>> # New ports collection makefile for: BIND 9.9.x > >>> # Date created: 27 January 2012 > >>> # Whom: dougb > >>> # > >>> # $FreeBSD: head/dns/bind99/Makefile 301487 2012-07-24 19:23:23Z dougb $ > >>> =20 > >>> have not served a purpose for longer than almost anyone who has a ports > >>> commit bit has been around. My proposal is simple, let's remove > >>> everything before the # $FreeBSD$. > >>> =20 > >>> In the past when this has been proposed the objection was that it would > >>> cause too much churn. If we had done this back when we had 5,000 ports > >>> then we would have solved the problem with less churn, and no drama for > >>> the 15,000 ports that followed. Every day we don't do this we make the > >>> "churn" problem worse, and deepen the roots of something that has no > >>> relevance. > >>> =20 > >>> Can we please just deal with this now and be done with it? ... and yes, > >>> I am volunteering to help with and/or do the work myself. > >> > >> Yes please! We've got a nice repository that stores all the data in > >> question much more accurately than a silly header. > >> > >> -- Brooks > > > > > > The example from original post of dns/bind99 is rather new, > > > >> # New ports collection makefile for: BIND 9.9.x > >> # Date created: 27 January 2012 > >> # Whom: dougb > >> # > >> # $FreeBSD: head/dns/bind99/Makefile 301487 2012-07-24 19:23:23Z dougb $ > > > > > > An older Makefile where "MAINTAINER=" evolved to no longer repeat "Whom:" > > > > # ports collection makefile for: hylafax > > # Date created: 16 May 1995 > > # Whom: Julian Stacey <j...@freebsd.org> > > # > > # $FreeBSD: ports/comms/hylafax/Makefile,v 1.101 2010/09/19 12:04:42 dinoex > > Exp $ > > .... > > MAINTAINER= din...@freebsd.org > > > > > > Yes, first line seem disposable, repeating info in PORTNAME PORTVERSION > > # ports collection makefile for: hylafax > > # New ports collection makefile for: BIND 9.9.x > > > > But Whom & Date are useful on occasion. > > On various other older ports, when I couldnt get response in time > > from MAINTAINER (I don't mean re hylafax), perhaps maintainer on > > holiday, & I couldn't wait for send-pr tiem out, & didnt want to > > invoke send-pr, I fell back succesfully, to contacting the Whom: > > creator, who while no longer regularly motivated to do maintenance, > > could respond without delay & give hints (fallback maintainer). > > I know several ports where this is the opposite of what the submitter > wants. They've long moved on and do not want to be bothered. Plus it > only adds to frustration to the reporter, who is sending a *2nd* email > to a *2nd* person who may not respond. Yes, allow Whom: to request his/her Human name &/or email address be deleted. > > I presume some other users do that too, but we'd not see evidence > > if people chose not to use send-pr (often a good thing to omit > > initialy, eg when one isnt sure if one has a local mistake or > > misunderstanding, or if there's a generic bug.) > > > > Hiding Whom in meta data would be bad: > > Within a cvs or svn would make it much harder to access. ports.tgz > > comes on CDs etc, all get it. Less people have cvs, less still > > svn, less svn mirrors, less people (outside commiters) will be > > experienced/familiar with svn compared to cvs. > > You can easily look on freshports. I just use what's under freebsd.org domain & (CTM) feeds of src ports cvs (& now svn). I've never looked much at Me-Too-For-A-BSD-domains eg PCBSD freshports etc. I guessed freshports.org, checked & got xants type spider gimmick in browser, so closed browser. > > Some ports are easy to create, eg my lang/pbasic, but some are > > hard, (eg I'd guess editors/openoffice-3 may have been, One might ask > > # Whom: Martin Blapp > > comms/hylafax was a lot of work (whatever might show in Makefile, > > getting run time interfaces sorted was Work). > > > > Let ports creators retain their one line of credit. Removing it > > would save little & be ungrateful, like removing names out of .c > > & .h. (Some (inc. me) may like noticing in passing who created > > the ports one's working on)). The credit may encourage some ports > > creators to struggle on, creating sometimes obdurate complex ports > > one might otherwise be tempted to give up on after a not-yet-port > > is just hand built & hand tested localy, > > I actually agree fully with keeping their line of credit. But I disagree > that we should not remove or modify their email address on request from > them. I always assumed we allowed update & deletion of Whom: via send-pr. both of human names (which may vary, eg on marriage) &/or email addresses (I guess many use long term stable addresses to reduce edit load). Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, like a play script. Indent old text with "> ". Send plain text. Not: HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"