Please remove the bogofilter-current port. It is notoriously outdated, ships unsupported bogofilter versions, is not subject to security updates/announcements/review. bogofilter "current" versions aren't suitable to be packaged. Fix: Remove the port.
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 06:23:47PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > >Number: 81270 > >Category: ports > >Synopsis: please remove bogus unmaintained mail/bogofilter-current port > >Confidential: no > >Severity: serious > >Priority: low > >Responsible: freebsd-ports-bugs > >State: open > >Quarter: > >Keywords: > >Date-Required: > >Class: change-request > >Submitter-Id: current-users > >Arrival-Date: Thu May 19 16:30:06 GMT 2005 > >Closed-Date: > >Last-Modified: > >Originator: Matthias Andree > >Release: FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE i386 > >Organization: > >Environment: > System: FreeBSD merlin.emma.line.org 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #29: Thu May 5 11:41:16 CEST 2005 root@merlin.emma.line.org:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/MA5 i386 > > > > >Description: > Please remove the bogofilter-current port. > > It is notoriously outdated, ships unsupported bogofilter versions, > is not subject to security updates/announcements/review. > > bogofilter "current" versions aren't suitable to be packaged. > > >How-To-Repeat: > > >Fix: > Remove the port. AFAIR, vanilla@ requested a repocopy for it, please ask him why he needed it. -Kirill
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > AFAIR, vanilla@ requested a repocopy for it, please ask him why he > needed it. I don't care who had this brain fart of adding a new sibling port for a release candidate, outdated on the day it was committed, and with the base port updated a day or two later. This is just stupid. I do care that the outdated bogofilter-current port is going away, and quickly at that. I'm Cc:ing portmgr because they need to hit some committers with a cluestick or revoke commit bits. Why is not vanilla@ asking the maintainer of the baseline port first and wait a few days before committing? Isn't communication committer policy? Repeat: bogofilter "current" is NOT suitable to be packaged downstream. And this is my statement as bogofilter maintainer, not port maintainer. My not updating the bogofilter port had a reason, namely that the code wasn't in shape for deployment. If people want to run bleeding edge versions, they should compile from CVS or tarball and read the lists. Please kill the bogofilter-current port, preferably including the CVSROOT stuff.
BTW, see ports/81268 for why ELSE bogofilter-current isn't needed.
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:25:22PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: [emotions skipped] > I'm Cc:ing portmgr because they need to hit some committers with a > cluestick or revoke commit bits. Well, I think it's not a big deal that current version exists, if you don't like it or you think it's not suitable for ports collection, please explain it in technical details to maintainer. If maintainer would like to have this port and it's not broken and he's also ready to maintain it further, it's his business, not portmgr. > Why is not vanilla@ asking the maintainer of the baseline port first and > wait a few days before committing? Isn't communication committer policy? Right, that's why ask maintainer privately first, before pouring out a negative emotional stuff on all our heads. > Repeat: bogofilter "current" is NOT suitable to be packaged downstream. > And this is my statement as bogofilter maintainer, not port maintainer. Not all development versions are stable enough, they exist in ports collection though, because people need them for some reasons. If those ports build fine, and are helpful for people, I don't see any reason to remove them. So please remove portmgr from such kind of discussions, and speak with maintainer at first. -Kirill
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:40:00PM +0200, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > Right, that's why ask maintainer privately first, before pouring out > a negative emotional stuff on all our heads. I'd like to say sorry to Matthias for repocopy of bogofilter without notify :) > > Repeat: bogofilter "current" is NOT suitable to be packaged downstream. > > And this is my statement as bogofilter maintainer, not port maintainer. > Not all development versions are stable enough, they exist in ports > collection though, because people need them for some reasons. If > those ports build fine, and are helpful for people, I don't see any > reason to remove them. So please remove portmgr from such kind of > discussions, and speak with maintainer at first. I agree with Kirill, in most case, user want devel version of ports, but some of ports maintainer (include me, ex irc/irssi) don't like to repocopy the devel version, maybe you can say "why user can't not upgrade by themself?" "why it need to repocopy, and put into ports collection" I don't know, not everyone know how to upgrade it.
Dear maintainer of FreeBSD port mail/bogofilter-current, do you agree with submitter to remove mail/bogofilter-current port, because it contains older version of bogofilter than mail/bogofilter port? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?q=81270 -- Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz> <pav@FreeBSD.org> /usr/src scares me. I'm just not man enough to commit there.
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Asked maintainer's opinion
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->pav Fool around
Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org> comments: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?q=80920 -- Marcus Grando Grupos Internet S/A marcus(at)corp.grupos.com.br
State Changed From-To: feedback->closed Port removed after agreement of maintainer