If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
demelier.david at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 10:47:01 UTC 2013
2013/12/17 John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st>:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs. One user even proudly boasted
> that sending email to ports@ is faster than writing a PR so of course he
> was going to do that instead.
> If this kind of post is acceptable to the rest of the people here, and
> I'm alone in not only finding it very rude, but also making the volume
> of ports@ too high, then please tell me that the problem is with me.
> If nothing is going to change, I am going to unsubscribe from ports@
> list. The gcc developers on gcc at gcc.gnu.org always tell a poster when a
> post in appropriate for that list and as a result and as a result the
> posters usually only make a mistake once. I'd like to see something
> closer to that, but if the list isn't going to be policed then it's too
> noisy for me.
I agree on some points. However, sometimes users asks why it does not
compile because it can come from their installations. It's quite true,
a port "should" compile if not it should be marked as BROKEN. I
personally prefer to ask to the list when it does not compiles because
it can comes from me.
For instance I asked for virtualbox because I didn't see any other
complaint nor PRs and since it compiles from my system and not
poudriere I thought I did something wrong. And for that purpose I
think that we should not spam the GNATS where problems can appear at
the user side first.
But for me, I often starts my mails by Hello :-).
More information about the freebsd-ports