FreeBSD Port: phpMyAdmin-2.8.0.3

[fbsd]

fbsd wrote:
> I am tired by being called a troll by you people.
> I report the fact that the phpMyAdmin package is broken
> and you folks turn this in to being my fault.
> What the hell is wrong with you.
>
>
Don't verbally attack people who are trying to help you, and you
wont be
called a troll. phpMyAdmin isn't broken, its used by THOUSANDS of
people, it is infact in use on my system right now, and I have no
problems with it.

********** It may have worked in the past but as of the start
of this thread the package does not install. You need to try running
the
package before opening your month.

> The fact still remains that the phpMyAdmin package is broken
> because it calls for pdflib and pdflib is marked as broken.
> Also the package will only use php4 and mysql4.
> There should be a php5/mysql5 package version.
>
Ok, so submit a patch to fix it? If you want a php5/mysql5 version,
create a metaport to do it, quit complaining to people who volunteer
to
maintain these ports, they have no obligation to fix your personal
problems.

***** how can the phpmyadmin package be patched?
It has to be recreated from the port.
You should know that.


> How in the world can this be my fault?
>
No one said its your fault, you are verbally attacking people who
are
trying to help you, thats no way to handle things.

******  sure you are blaming me. just read the complete thread

> You took me down the road of a work around using the ports.
>
The ports are there for people to use, its your choice to use them
or not.
> All this did was point out that there is problems with how pkgs
and
> ports work together.
>
Yes, there are problems with using packages/ports together. One
problem
being the amount of time it takes to actually build a full set of
packages, by the time the entire package tree is built, new versions
have come out.

******  then instead of having the ports collection as a moving
target,
change to benchmarking it on new release boundaries.

> I am not interested in playing with the complete ports system on
my
> box.
>
Well thats too bad then, But dont expect to get much help when you
run
into problems. it sounds like your /usr/ports/Mk/* are out of date
anyways, but that's been said, and you disregarded the suggestions.

********  as it stated before how can my /usr/ports/Mk/* be
outdated when I have created FreeBSD 6.1 from fresh virgin install.
What ever /usr/ports/Mk/* I have it just came from the ports
collection.
The problem is at your end. Why can't you get that point.

> Any of you who think the requirement of installing the complete
> ports system on your box is the way to manage ports have something
> wrong in your head. The ports system is growing at 200 ports a
> month.  Where do you draw the line at this method having out lived
> its usefulness. The package system is the solution in the long run
> and sooner or later this fact will be forced on you by the sheer
> size of the ports system.
>
There you go verbally attacking people again, continue on your troll
legacy. Yes, the ports tree is growing very fast, unfortunately when
it
was originally designed, a lot of corners were cut to make it easier
to
maintain AT THE TIME. Now that it has grown to such a large number
of
ports, even small changes can have large effects. Binary packages
are
NOT a good replacement. It would be impossible to build all the
ports
into packages with ALL the options possible, there would just be far
too
many of them to actively keep up with the development cycle.

*******  if you think that statement is verbally attacking,
then you need to get out into the real world more. Wake up man
you are living a way to sheltered life.
This is a public project and not a church group.

******  then create a  new category that only contains the most
used applications in the port collection and only build packages for
them?

> At no time did any of you try the phpmyadmin package to
> prove it worked and thus prove me wrong.
> So shut your collective pie hole.
> Your credibility as people who know the ports/package system
> has been proven by your posts to be false.
> Not one of you tried the package in question or offered to fix it.
> Calling me a troll is your way of not address the original
problem.
>
Your credibility as a troll is growing with every line you type.
What
have YOU contributed to this project? Lets see some of your PRs? How
about a patch to fix this "problem" you have found?

**** Why does my contribution to this project have to be mesured by
writting patches?
I wrote the complete firewall section in the handbook so shut up.

> You missed the point of my original post from the get go.
> You should start reading at the beginning of this thread and
> see how foolish your post have been when all that was stated
> is that the phpmyadmin package don't work.
>

I have read the entire post, and see you are still verbally
attacking
people, drop the attitude, or find yourself on the killfile of all
the
helpful people on this project. Myself included.

**** its just this attitude so well shown by your above statment
that is the real problem.


> So I end it here.
>
> Fix the phpMyAdmin package or not is up to you.
>
> Take to heart the other problems I pointed out with the php5
> and php4 ports/pkg and fix them or not.
>
> I can not correspond with you prima donna's any longer,
> it's just a waste of my time.
>

In the time you spent ranting about this, you could have submitted a
patch, or filed a bug report the PROPER way. not bitch about it on a
public list. You said you have been using freebsd since 3.x or so,
if
you have infact been using it this long, it seems you would know how
to
use send-pr(1) and also know the ramifications of using a partially
updated ports tree.

****  I clicked on the phpmyadmin manintainer link in the ports
website.
That link put the list on my post.
I left it there because I though you required it.  Not my fault.

I an not ranting. I have pointed over and over aggain in this thread
that
the package is broken and needs fixing. It's you people who have
contiuned
going on about things not related to the package.

Just try to use the package and you will see for your self that
what I have been saying all along is ture.