ports/90312: [patch] www/mod_perl2: added support for www/apache22
Lars Eggert
lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de
Tue Dec 13 12:20:08 UTC 2005
The following reply was made to PR ports/90312; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de>
To: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=8Aimun_Mikecin?= <simun.mikecin at logos.hr>
Cc: <bug-followup at freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: ports/90312: [patch] www/mod_perl2: added support for www/apache22
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:13:23 +0100
On Dec 13, 2005, at 12:51, =8Aimun Mikecin wrote:
> Just like the maintainership of the port does not mean you will =20
> *always*
> take care of bugfixing, updating and resolving problems, I cannot be a
> tester whenever you make a change. Port maintanership is based on =20
> doing
> it on best-effort basis as time permits, so is my help with testing.
> Nobody is paid to do it.
I am well aware of what port maintainership entails.
> Beside maintaining a few ports, I do testing
> for other maintainers in the environment they cant do the testing
> themself. It is usually testing on different hardware or different
> architecture.
Hence my question if you were wiling to do the same for mod_perl2. =20
Apparently, you aren't, which is fine of course.
> It would be a very bad thing for them to have an attitude
> to refuse to support other architectures just because they can test it
> only on (for example) i386.
I'm not refusing anything. I'm pointing out that adding support for =20
configurations I can't test may create problems, because people will =20
expect those configurations to work when I cannot test them.
I'm open for constructive suggestions on how to deal with this. One =20
way would be someone that can test these configurations and provide =20
feedback. Another - worse - way is to temporarily disable those =20
configurations, to avoid violating POLA ("well, it compiled, so it =20
must run correctly, too").
Lars
--
Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories
More information about the freebsd-ports-bugs
mailing list