If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
freebsd.contact at marino.st
Thu Dec 19 13:04:46 UTC 2013
On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
> broken has to work.
I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you from
experience that this assumption is not valid.
> So, the fault is on our side. Why should we spam
> GNATS with our problem?
> GNATS for confirmed problems, the list for anything else.
Where is this cited?
PRs are not for confirmed problems. They are for any problem.
However, this kind of "confirmation" post is not the type of post I was
complaining about. Unless your "confirmation" is no more than an except
of a log, then it is.
To iterate my opinion, if a breakage is a symptom of a systematic issue,
or the port in question breaks like 6000 dependent ports, the ports@ is
appropriate. If it's a single broken port, then a PR is appropriate.
Alternatively, email the maintainer only. The majority of us on this
list do not care about individual broken ports and getting a sent a log
is noise at best.
More information about the freebsd-ports