On 10 June 2012 11:51, O. Hartmann <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > On 06/10/12 12:37, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 10 June 2012 11:12, Martin Sugioarto <mar...@sugioarto.com> wrote: >>> Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:09:09 +0700 >>> schrieb Adam Strohl <adams-free...@ateamsystems.com>: >>> >>>> I get the feeling people are updating their ports tree and then >>>> recompiling/reinstalling everything "just because" and then are >>>> complaining when one thing breaks (its the only thing I can think of). >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> But it does not need to break. Sometimes it would be enough just to >>> test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about >>> libreoffice here which is broken). Some people rely on some essential >>> ports. I can understand that porters are not Gods and make errors, but >>> they should be fixed within hours, when they have been found on >>> important ports. >>> >>> I mean, ports collection is sure great and this is one of the aspects >>> why I am using FreeBSD, but at the moment FreeBSD is losing strength >>> here, in my opinion. >> >> Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will >> creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different >> configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite >> frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. >> >> Chris > > In do not see any insulting statement! Why those exaggerations?
>> Sometimes it would be enough just to >> test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about >> libreoffice here which is broken) _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
