--- Comment #7 from Guido Falsi <madpi...@freebsd.org> ---
(In reply to rozhuk.im from comment #6)
> (In reply to Guido Falsi from comment #5)
> year+ - no activity in upstream, is there are life?
This is irrelevant and in fact against your interest to point this out.
If a patch is not accepted upstream maybe there are reasons for that.
Also the fact the patch is not accepted upstream, even if accepting without
question it to be good, is no reason to push it in FreeBSD. It could add
It will also make updating the port more difficult. The patched code could be
modified upstream and the patch need reconciliation, or changes upstream can
cause the patch to break.
> Yes, our port does not have GIO option, I do tests by add to makefile GIO
> option and uncheck it.
So the GIO case is irrelevant to our ports tree. No need to diverge to fix a
problem that cannot happen.
> I dont know what I need to do with upstream, they do not react on bug tacker.
While I understand your frustration I have no connection with the upstream.
If you get your code accepted by upstream that is proof of a minimum quality of
the change and also will mean thee code will anyway get in the ports tree, so
there is no reason to hold the change.
If you cannot some FreeBSD committer needs to test check and make a decision,
this takes time. This is a volunteer project and no one is paid for it or
working full time on port bugs. Things may require time.
Please give me time to evaluate your code properly.
This is a "port" of the upstream code not original code. Any divergence needs a
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"