FreeBSD Port: bash-4.2.28

Mon Jul 30 02:19:53 UTC 2012

Kevin sorry for posting this from your message "it had to go somewhere
since there was no such great message to reply to." not intended
directly toward anyone in general.

This thread has turned to nothing but obnoxious dribble of what used to
be a simple problem to solve.

All of the bash-* patches that were inquired about are important to the
user interface and some of them are directly related to most everyone.

ESPECIALLY $HOME/ expansiion if I might need to state one.

But let me state one thing here....

Ports is a framework containing lots of development. And justly it
should not be judged that a port should not be upgraded because it might
introduce new bugs to a stable community.

Just because a port is being updated does not neccesarily mean that
end-user needs to update their local install. It does mean that if its
there it will get more exposure to further fixes... There are several
ports which go head -> head with the most current release that could
stand to not be updated quite so often.

So for what its worth "Stop pu??y wiping ports!" especially when it does
not break the ports system itself.

All this written from mutt(1) ontop of bash(1) 4.2.37(0)-release since
Jul 17!

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 06:29:37PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:42:38 -0700
> > Doug Barton articulated:
> >
> >> Umm ... wow. I'll try to respond substantively below.
> >>
> >> On 07/29/2012 04:46, Jerry wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
> >> > Doug Barton articulated:
> >> >
> >> >> Completely aside from my being thoroughly impressed with your
> >> >> mind-reading abilities, upgrading to the latest/greatest is not
> >> >> always the best strategy. Speaking generally, even things that are
> >> >> (nominally) strictly bug fixes can bring in new problems, and Bash
> >> >> patches are not always strictly bug fixes.
> >> >
> >> > First of all, I see you CC'd me "AGAIN". Obviously your
> >> > comprehension skills are rather lax since I have a clearly noted
> >> > request NOT to be CC'd and have in the past specifically asked you
> >> > not to do so.
> >>
> >> I made a point of cc'ing you on my last message because I wanted to
> >> make sure you saw the bit about not using foul language. I appreciate
> >> you respecting that.
> >
> > First of all, lets make something clear, I have no respect for you. You
> > are like a frigging kid. The only permanent solution is to smash your
> > frigging head in with a bat. Oops, I hope I didn't offend you. Maybe
> > you should CC your mother so she can protect you, you asshole.
> >
> >> Meanwhile, yes, you've expressed a preference not to be cc'ed on list
> >> mail previously. Rather than trying to rehash the whole discussion,
> >> I'll simply repeat the main 2 points:
> >>
> >> 1. Asking the entire Internet to conform to your whim is not a
> >> rational strategy.
> >> 2. The FreeBSD mailman implementation allows you to specify only
> >> receiving 1 copy of a message that you are cc'ed on.
> >
> > Allow me to respond to that, "BULLSHIT". Oh, did I offend you? I never
> > asked the frigging entire Internet to bow down to my will; I simple
> > asked not to be CC'd. Since you, most likely due to your NPD affiliation
> > are unable to honor my simple request, why the frigging hell should I
> > afford yours any traction? You do realize that you do not have to
> > include my name in the CC line don't you?
> >
> >> > I took
> >> > the time to relay your CC'd message to SpamCop. I know it won't do
> >> > any good, but it is a feel good thing.
> >>
> >> Knock yourself out. :)
> >>
> >> > Strictly speaking, it is none of your business if bug fixes can
> >> > bring in or expose new or undiscovered problems.
> >>
> >> You keep repeating this "none of your business" line as if for some
> >> reason I don't have the right to ask the question. This is an open
> >> project, we can all ask questions.
> >
> > Ask question yes; stating that any patch or whatever not be instituted
> > because it doesn't meet your standards is repulsive. (NPD strikes again)
> >
> >> > It has been shown throughout
> >> > history that any advancement can bring with it, its own new set of
> >> > problems. Should we all abandon the use of electricity because
> >> > there is a real possibility that someone man get electrified.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that's just silly. Before we upgrade something it's useful to
> >> ask the question of whether or not the upgrade is qualitatively
> >> "better" or not. Just because something comes down from upstream
> >> doesn't mean it's an improvement from our users' perspective.
> >
> > Based upon who's opinion, yours? There is that NPD kicking in again.
> > Lets all bow down to Dough the magnificent. Only he is worthy to judge
> > whether a port is deemed worthy of being updated. I am going to file a
> > PR against this for insertion into the handbook. I know it will never
> > get published, but it just another "feel good" thing.
> >
> >> > By the way, do you use bash? if not then what is your
> >> > problem? If you do, have you read what the patches actually entail?
> >> > I have.
> >>
> >> I already mentioned that I did review the patches.
> >>
> >> >> There is also the issue that in FreeBSD we are generally more
> >> >> conservative about upgrading something from a known-stable version.
> >> >
> >> > That is a lot about nothing. Postfix is updated in virtual real
> >> > time. For every port that you can list that is left effectively
> >> > abandoned for extended periods of time, I can produce one that is
> >> > updated in a timely fashion.
> >>
> >> ... all of which would be totally irrelevant. Maintainers are
> >> responsible for deciding whether to update, and is so, when. They are
> >> also responsible for making sure that the new version is actually an
> >> improvement. For some ports/maintainers these are easy decisions. For
> >> others they may take time, and/or the maintainer themselves may have
> >> to prioritize the update amongst many other projects.
> >
> > So why not let the port maintainer express his feeling on this matter?
> > Do you feel he is not capable, or should I say as capable as you of
> > expressing his feelings?
> >
> >> Getting information from the users as to why a particular update may
> >> have a higher priority than is obvious at first glance is very
> >> valuable to the maintainer.
> >
> > So you are proposing that ports only be updated when specifically
> > requested by users? Again, the last Bash update took nearly a year.
> > This one is several months old all ready. If the port is only going to
> > be updated semi-annually, or annually, then it would behoove the
> > maintainer to publicly state so. What is so frigging hard about that.
> >
> > Personally, whether Bash is updated in the ports tree means nothing to
> > me; mine all ready is. What does annoy me is when an NPD suffering
> > individual tries to impose his will on others.
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> OK. While Doug can be a bit (or even quite a bit) abrasive at times,
> your postings have been nothing but rude drivel. I think he might not
> realize how some of his messages read. Then again, he is vastly nicer
> and more patient with fools than many.
> 
> Please go away. Find some other OS that is willing to put up with
> infantile attacks on valued, long term contributors who give
> substantial portions of their time trying to help others. Or just
> write your own and complain to yourself. It is not part of the FreeBSD
> requirements for contributors to be polite to every person who can
> manage to boot up a computer and send an e-mail.
> 
> Your address in now in my .procmailrc file, so don't bother
> responding. (By the way, procmail provides trivial duplicate message
> removal.) I know you don't care, but I'd just as soon not cause you to
> annoy others who will see it.
> -- 
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
> E-mail: kob6558 at gmail.com

-- 

 - (2^(N-1)) JJH48-ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120730/b98be608/attachment.pgp