cvs commit: ports/sysutils Makefile ports/sysutils/tzdialog Makefile distinfo pkg-descr

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:32:39AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 04:28:21PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Yeah, that completely doesn't answer my question. You were the one who
> > committed this port. Can you please explain why?
> 
> 1/ because submitter proposed it to the ports tree, since when are we juging
> when should go in or not (if maintained) when dealing with port?

Since the very beginning.  Submitters can submit whatever they feel like;
but nothing is getting blindly committed if it happens to look like a port
and pass tindy builds.  Shortly speaking, we don't commit crappy or useless
stuff.  In this sense, Doug's question if perfectly valid: what warrants
this port to be included in the collection?  It's pretty big enough already.

> 2/ because it adds feature tzsetup doesn't have like the Xdialog version?

OK, was it mentioned in the commit log/pkg-descr?  If not, why not?

> 4/ some people creating their own install media are happy to be able to
> pick it from the ports

But to be able to make that decision, they need to know what goods port
version is bringing them compared to the base one, no?

> 5/ people are now able to easily test/compare both tzsetup/tzdialog which
> might help if tzdialog is to be proposed directly in base.

This implies that tzdialog could be merged some time in the future, which
also should have been reflected in the commit log.

> Do we really need more reasons ?

No matter if these reasons are valid or not, we should really try to improve
our culture of documenting what we commit.

./danfe