Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:02:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. Traditions are great, particularly when they have meaning. When they just become Doing it that way because we always done it is no substitute for maintaining a tradition for a meaningful purpose. 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. 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. We discussed this on portmgr@, and we have agreed it is time to make the change. We do request that this be done sparingly in the short term, as we do not want to cause any additional churn on the repo as we approach our upcoming Ports Feature Freeze, still tentatively scheduled for September 7. So please proceed only on existing updates. Please do not do any sweeping commits until we have the ports tree stablised post 9.1 tagging. Also bear in mind that Redports/QAT queues a job for every change done to a Makefile, we do not want to overburden the QAT at this time. It is important to allow this service to run at peek efficiency at this time to ensure it's full potential as we approach the upcoming Feature Freeze. So without further ado, this is what we would like to see at the top of the makefile # # $FreeBSD$ # PORTNAME= It is as easy as that :) Thomas on behalf of portmgr@ Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ 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 -- Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer tabtho...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe pgp2TUUaac02a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Thomas Abthorpe tabtho...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:02:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. Traditions are great, particularly when they have meaning. When they just become Doing it that way because we always done it is no substitute for maintaining a tradition for a meaningful purpose. 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. 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. We discussed this on portmgr@, and we have agreed it is time to make the change. We do request that this be done sparingly in the short term, as we do not want to cause any additional churn on the repo as we approach our upcoming Ports Feature Freeze, still tentatively scheduled for September 7. So please proceed only on existing updates. Please do not do any sweeping commits until we have the ports tree stablised post 9.1 tagging. Also bear in mind that Redports/QAT queues a job for every change done to a Makefile, we do not want to overburden the QAT at this time. It is important to allow this service to run at peek efficiency at this time to ensure it's full potential as we approach the upcoming Feature Freeze. So without further ado, this is what we would like to see at the top of the makefile # # $FreeBSD$ # PORTNAME= It is as easy as that :) This would make me happy. Another option I would like to throw out there is to just stick the # $FreeBSD$ at the end of the file so the first line is PORTNAME= ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On 08/30/2012 09:56 AM, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: So without further ado, this is what we would like to see at the top of the makefile # # $FreeBSD$ # PORTNAME= It is as easy as that :) I was sort of afraid that would be the answer ... while I realize we have massive historical precedents for the additional #s above and below the content, what I was hoping for was that we would make the big break with hysterical raisins and just make the # $FreeBSD$ the first line of the file. It's a minor issue (and yes, this is a legitimate bikeshed) but to my way of thinking the extra #s are just wasted space that reduce the amount of useful data that is presented when you open the file in an editor. I won't lose sleep if we go with the extra #s, but I wanted to at least raise the issue in case there was still a chance to keep it simple. :) Doug ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On 08/30/2012 10:09 AM, Steven Kreuzer wrote: This would make me happy. Another option I would like to throw out there is to just stick the # $FreeBSD$ at the end of the file so the first line is PORTNAME= ... also a good suggestion, and further improves the amount of usable data when you first open the file. Doug ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:54:17PM -1000, Doug Barton wrote: On 08/30/2012 09:56 AM, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: So without further ado, this is what we would like to see at the top of the makefile # # $FreeBSD$ # PORTNAME= It is as easy as that :) I was sort of afraid that would be the answer ... while I realize we have massive historical precedents for the additional #s above and below the content, what I was hoping for was that we would make the big break with hysterical raisins and just make the # $FreeBSD$ the first line of the file. It's a minor issue (and yes, this is a legitimate bikeshed) but to my way of thinking the extra #s are just wasted space that reduce the amount of useful data that is presented when you open the file in an editor. I won't lose sleep if we go with the extra #s, but I wanted to at least raise the issue in case there was still a chance to keep it simple. :) Doug Well, since we are going with something new, let us just do it, one line # $FreeBSD$ at the very top. Thomas -- Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer tabtho...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe pgprfwLM7abWK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:09:00PM -0400, Steven Kreuzer wrote: snip So without further ado, this is what we would like to see at the top of the makefile # # $FreeBSD$ # PORTNAME= It is as easy as that :) This would make me happy. Another option I would like to throw out there is to just stick the # $FreeBSD$ at the end of the file so the first line is PORTNAME= I would much rather see it at the top, retaining the notion of header info at the top of the file. We are officially going from six lines down to one, that is buying us (if you still use an 80x24 window like me) an additional 20% of real estate at the top of the editor. Thomas -- Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer tabtho...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe pgpSBVqsHks1G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
Em 28-08-2012 01:27, Eitan Adler escreveu: If I understand correctly, you want the idea of multiple maintainers. I am completely for this. It is even trivial to do by adding a comment just below the MAINTAINER line. Or by listing various emails in the MAINTAINER variable, separated by space. Yes, portbuild scripts, portlint, PR auto-assign scripts, etc. need to be modified to deal with this. Gabor ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
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 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. 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, 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
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. 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. 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. Cheers, Julian -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On 27 August 2012 08:40, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote: 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). Which is exactly the reason we should get rid of the whom lines. The submitter is *not* a fallback maintainer, and some users mistakenly assume that the whom line is the maintainer. We should be encouraging users to mail po...@freebsd.org and possibly cc the maintainer if required. 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 The whom address might be bouncing, the person might be not be using FreeBSD anymore, or any of the like. 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, Interesting argument. But this implies that we should allow the whom line to be changed by creator request -- Eitan Adler ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
Eitan Adler wrote: On 27 August 2012 08:40, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote: 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). Which is exactly the reason we should get rid of the whom lines. The submitter is *not* a fallback maintainer, No, - eg, If MAINTAINER of hylafax had resigned I would have resumed maintenance. - Creators of others ports have functioned as fallback if asked. I guess its not an uncommon phenomena, a creator is happy someone else maintains code, but doesnt want to see a port unsupported if maintainer response might slip toward timeout replacement. and some users mistakenly assume that the whom line is the maintainer. If global edit is done, we could be more explicit than Whom: change to eg Creator (but see MAINTAINER below): We should be encouraging users to mail po...@freebsd.org and possibly cc the maintainer if required. Ports is high volume; one can get lost in traffic, sometimes private mail is better, context dependent. 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 The whom address might be bouncing, the person might be not be using FreeBSD anymore, or any of the like. Alow deletion update by send-pr 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, Interesting argument. But this implies that we should allow the whom line to be changed by creator request I wasnt aware they were not changeable ?. I'd assumed it was free text comment, not auto generated ? 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On 27 August 2012 10:23, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote: Eitan Adler wrote: No, - eg, If MAINTAINER of hylafax had resigned I would have resumed maintenance. This is unrelated to you being the original contributor. It is you, thankfully, being interested in the port. :) - Creators of others ports have functioned as fallback if asked. I guess its not an uncommon phenomena, a creator is happy someone else maintains code, but doesnt want to see a port unsupported if maintainer response might slip toward timeout replacement. It is equally common that the creator left the project and the given address bounces. change to eg Creator (but see MAINTAINER below): or just get rid of it, if we are changing things :) We should be encouraging users to mail po...@freebsd.org and possibly cc the maintainer if required. Ports is high volume; one can get lost in traffic, sometimes private mail is better, context dependent. this brings up a completely different bikeshed of splitting ports@ into -users and -devel, but not for now. :) Alow deletion update by send-pr You mean like a maintainer? If I understand correctly, you want the idea of multiple maintainers. I am completely for this. It is even trivial to do by adding a comment just below the MAINTAINER line. This is unrelated to maintaining the historical originator in the header of the port. I wasnt aware they were not changeable ?. I'd assumed it was free text comment, not auto generated ? this is the property which started this discussion. They are currently the historical address used to submit the port. The address is never changed. -- Eitan Adler ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On 08/26/12 17:02, Doug Barton wrote: The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. 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. 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. Doug +1 ___ 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
Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. 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. 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. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On 8/26/2012 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote: The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. 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. 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. If we can't agree to mass delete them with churn, let's at least agree to remove as we update ports, and in the template for new ports. Doug -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On 26 August 2012 22:04, Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net wrote: On 8/26/2012 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote: The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. 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. 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. If we can't agree to mass delete them with churn, let's at least agree to remove as we update ports, and in the template for new ports. Now in the days of Subversion... we could do the entire tree in one lovely atomic commit! Chris ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
Am 26.08.2012 23:06, schrieb Chris Rees: On 26 August 2012 22:04, Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net wrote: On 8/26/2012 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote: The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. 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. 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. If we can't agree to mass delete them with churn, let's at least agree to remove as we update ports, and in the template for new ports. Now in the days of Subversion... we could do the entire tree in one lovely atomic commit! I'm not too sure if we should do that. The server-side changeset would be of humongous size. (OTOH that's a nice test for the infrastructure - but if it breaks, we're in for trouble). ___ 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
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 02:02:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: The old Makefile headers, ala: # 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 $ 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 # $FreeBSD$. 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. 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 pgppCJv0YgbyO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Can we please just remove the old Makefile headers?
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net wrote: If we can't agree to mass delete them with churn, let's at least agree to remove as we update ports, and in the template for new ports. as we update ports Hear hear! The only sensible suggestion about how to handle it so far, IMHO. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen ___ 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
