On 14 Dec 2005, at 5:26 PM, Jolan Luff wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:31:31PM +1100, Ian McWilliam wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 12:59 PM, Jolan Luff wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:51:17PM +1100, Ian McWilliam wrote:
On 14 Dec 2005, at 10:42 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
It is time to ask ourselves how this state of affairs came to
be. Who
commited the stuff that broke so many packages?
And why do fixes for broken ports get ignored?
can you be more specific? like examples with links to mailing list
archives...
OK start with these two.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-ports&m=113314195505905&w=2
akpop3d - had some users screaming for help.
yes, i remember this one. unfortunately, i stopped following the
thread
once naddy@ replied since he had originally imported it and he said he
contacted the maintainer.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-ports&m=113222907802512&w=2
pear php4 - this one stops anyone , (and it's a real nice show
stopper! as it tries to recompile the entire php4 port from scratch
and winds up failing anyway) like myself from creating pear ports,
like when I was creating a pear Logging port to work with the openbsd
ports tree.
the pear ports that i checked all use php5 so i don't see what the
issue
is. did i miss some pear ports?
Probably not, but there are other applications (no pun intended) in
the usage of the ports tree than what is currently supported. So for
those of use needing/requiring to write pear ports against php4, yes
it's an issue.
I'm sure there are others, and having an unbroken ports tree in spots
would be nice.
well if this happens again please reply to your own mails every few
days
in increasingly vulgar language.
Ian McWilliam
