svn commit: r382341 - in head/lang: gcc46 gcc47 gcc48 gcc49 gcc5
John Marino
freebsd.contact at marino.st
Thu Mar 26 21:04:58 UTC 2015
On 3/26/2015 21:57, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 3/26/2015 3:50 PM, John Marino wrote:
>> On 3/26/2015 21:46, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2015 3:36 PM, John Marino wrote:
>>>> Author: marino
>>>> Date: Thu Mar 26 20:36:04 2015
>>>> New Revision: 382341
>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/382341
>>>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r382341/
>>>>
>>>> Log:
>>>> lang/gcc(46,47,48,49,5): Use OPTIONS_EXCLUDE_DragonFly to block JAVA
>>>>
>>>> The JAVA frontend doesn't build on DragonFly on any release. The new
>>>> OPTIONS_EXCLUDE_${OPSYS} feature is a nice way to avoid the use of
>>>> Makefile.DragonFly (most are in dports, but one is in lang/gcc5).
>>>>
>>>> The recent addition of CXXFLAGS to lang/gcc5 prevents Makefile.DragonFly
>>>> on lang/gcc5 from being removed outright. There are a couple of options
>>>> available to allow its removal, but I'll need to discuss with Gerald.
>>>>
>>>> Approved by: DragonFly blanket
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you ignore all feedback? I find this as grounds for removal of
>>> commit bit.
>>>
>>> Why do DragonFly hacks belong in FreeBSD Ports? Not even DragonFly uses
>>> FreeBSD Ports, it uses dports. So why can these hacks not be in dports?
>>
>> Please take these threats offline.
>> Your "feedback" directly conflicts with permission I've been given.
>
> No it absolutely does not. _Bapt_ gave you permission to do DragonFly
> cleanups yes. This is not a blank approval to whatever you want. I've
> voiced much feedback over the past few days (as well as amdmi3) that you
> have completely ignored while hiding behind 'bapt approved it'. That is
> not how this community works.
I have blanket approval for non-invasive additions to support DragonFly.
OPTIONS_EXCLUDE_${OPSYS} qualifies; it's a no-op for FreeBSD.
> I also asked you to try to be less dragonfly-specific this morning. I
> too am portmgr. Bapt's year+ old blanket approval does not mean you get
> to ignore all new feedback.
> I really don't care if you have 900000 commits. You must follow the
> basic community rules of responding to feedback and listening to others.
> You constantly ignore others.
If I can't commit for DragonFly, I have no reason to commit at all.
portmgr is not a person, it's a committee. If the committee agrees with
you that my total contributions (PRs, mentoring) are not worth some
non-invasive support, then pull my bit.
John
More information about the svn-ports-head
mailing list