Update of quazip-0.5.1 to quazip-0.6.2 fails

Kurt Jaeger lists at opsec.eu
Wed Mar 19 19:23:36 UTC 2014


> > In that special case
> > 
> > http://www.freshports.org/archivers/quazip/
> > 
> > shows that the update was done after the maintainer failed to approve
> > the update. So in this particular case informing him might be
> > superfluous.

> Well, I am obviously not much trained in reading the commit history. I
> would conclude from the last entry "17 Mar 2014 15:54:23" and "Approved
> by: maintainer timeout (nivit, >4 weeks)" that the maintainer did not
> approve the commit and thus the commit remained untested.

The committer probably did test it, but probably had no previous quazip
installation to run into the problem.

> Can one
> conclude from this that the maintainer is aware of problems without
> reporting them?

No -- this meant that someone told the maintainer to check the PR,
but he failed to react. Why he failed to react (probably overload 8-}
does not allow one to draw conclusions on his consent/dissent or
anything else 8-}

> I cannot read that the maintainer "failed to approve".

Correct, the 'maintainer timeout' only says: He had time to react
and failed to react.

> Or can I assume for sure every port maintainer has subscribed to
> this mailing list?

You can't assume that. So, if you see problems, a mail directly
to the maintainer is one way, submitting a PR is another way to
handle it. This list is yet another way to get feedback on the

The best way it to submit a PR, because then the state of the
problem can be tracked.

pi at opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         6 years to go !

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list