svn commit: r412296 - head/lang/rust

[Thomas Zander]

John,

On 1 April 2016 at 10:01, John Marino (FreeBSD)
<freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:

> It's been addressed by portmgr.
> You are not expected to test fixes on DragonFly, but at the same time you
> aren't supposed to intentionally break existing DF support.  I am allowed to
> restore builds on DF when updates break them.

Of course I would not intentionally break DF support. That would be stupid.

> Why would you take offense that Jan is doing a big service for DF?  It
> doesn't affect you at all or add any new obligations.

Please don't twist my words. I did not take offense at Jan (in fact, I
started the mail with a compliment regarding his work) and I also did
not take offense at anybody doing a service for DF.
I said this does not fix a problem with the port, but it does
introduce a new feature, and the maintainer should be in the loop
before it is committed. Because at the end of the day the maintainer
is responsible for supporting a feature and receives the blame if
something breaks.

> The home of patches are mixed.  If the patches have benefits to FreeBSD (say
> to support gcc compiler) then they move to ports.  If they conflict with
> FreeBSD somehow, then they stay in dports.

Exactly this is my point: This commit does not a have a benefit to
FreeBSD. It adds *only* DF-specifics. Therefore my instincts tell me
this should be part of dports, and I would have appreciated this
discussion before the commit, not after the fact. That's all. And
since the fix-it-blanket is not clear enough in all cases (obviously
Jan and me came to different conclusions whether this one is a fix),
it would be good to have a word from portmgr whether something like
this is part of it or not. Because for sure there are/will be more PRs
with a similar intention.

Best regards
Riggs