svn commit: r382341 - in head/lang: gcc46 gcc47 gcc48 gcc49 gcc5

[Bryan Drewery]

On 3/26/2015 4:04 PM, John Marino wrote:
> 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.

You again ignore everything I say here. You then justify it because 1
portmgr approved it, and then go on to tell me portmgr is a committee.
This blanket was never officially voted on. You can't have it both ways.
AFAIK changing -pthread to -lpthread was not voted on either.

1 portmgr (adhoc) approving something does not remove the requirement to
listen to feedback.

> 
>> 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
> 


-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/attachments/20150326/a93cba59/attachment.sig>