Created attachment 146616 [details] ports-mgmt/bxpkg [maintainer] MASTER_SITES STAGE patch files svn diff ports-mgmt/bxpkg adds MAINTAINER, MASTER_SITES, files/patch-src-Makefile, files/patch-test-Makefile removes dead MASTER_SITES link Please see svn(1) diff(1), attached to this pr(1). --Chris
Why are you trying to save this? Does it even work with pkgng? You didn't remove the OSVERSION check for FreeBSD 7 which is invalid now. And it's completely untested.
confirmed, bxpkg does not support pkgng. That's the reason the PR is rejected You gave no justification for keeping the port, so I have no idea why you'd want this useless s/w in ports.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #1) > Why are you trying to save this? Does it even work with pkgng? > > You didn't remove the OSVERSION check for FreeBSD 7 which is invalid now. > > And it's completely untested. https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140831222131-37915-239435/bxpkg-0.0.4.0_2.log https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140831222131-37915-239434/bxpkg-0.0.4.0_2.log https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140831222131-37915-239433/bxpkg-0.0.4.0_2.log https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140831222131-37915-239432/bxpkg-0.0.4.0_2.log FWIW, nothing I have submitted is "completely untested". Unless it was some simple one-liner on a port that only required a SRCIPT_INSTALL. I would, and do, perform a test against whatever I have available. As you can see, from above. I _did_ test this. Before submitting the pr(1). --Chris
After giving up asking for poudriere, I repeatedly requested output of: make check-plist make stage-qa make check-sanity portlint Not once did you comply. It's untested. I don't accept redports because as we have seen many times, it does not check gross plist errors. It's essentially worthless for staging. It's only good to check on all platforms after staging is confirmed. So yes, in this context it's untested. and you didn't even give links to redports before so...? If you don't provide proof, it didn't happen. The other thing about this port you did not address: It only works with pkg_* tools which were removed today, so why on earth would you try to save it? I thought you had specific reasons for specific ports but I cannot see any reason for this.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #4) > After giving up asking for poudriere, I repeatedly requested output of: > > make check-plist > make stage-qa > make check-sanity > portlint > > Not once did you comply. > It's untested. > > > I don't accept redports because as we have seen many times, it does not > check gross plist errors. It's essentially worthless for staging. It's > only good to check on all platforms after staging is confirmed. > > So yes, in this context it's untested. and you didn't even give links to > redports before so...? > > If you don't provide proof, it didn't happen. > > > The other thing about this port you did not address: > It only works with pkg_* tools which were removed today, so why on earth > would you try to save it? I thought you had specific reasons for specific > ports but I cannot see any reason for this. I'm currently attempting to setup a _proper_ poudriere_ environment to accommodate all of your requests/demands. I understand that you [perhaps rightfully so] reject redports as adequate. Fair enough. But if you find/decide there are still issues with any of my submission(s). Then just say so, and mark them, as such. I'll resolve them, and things will continue to move on (ahead). As intended. IMHO I see no reason to flatly reject everything I submit. The [my] submissions are not _completely_ w/o merit. I have already vowed to resolve any outstanding issues. As history has shown, I _do_ do so. Perhaps not in your [desired] time frame. But, until I get poudriere setup properly, I am forced to do the best I can, with what I have. --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #5) > (In reply to John Marino from comment #4) > > After giving up asking for poudriere, I repeatedly requested output of: > > > > make check-plist > > make stage-qa > > make check-sanity > > portlint > > > > Not once did you comply. > > It's untested. > > > > > > I don't accept redports because as we have seen many times, it does not > > check gross plist errors. It's essentially worthless for staging. It's > > only good to check on all platforms after staging is confirmed. > > > > So yes, in this context it's untested. and you didn't even give links to > > redports before so...? > > > > If you don't provide proof, it didn't happen. > > > > > > The other thing about this port you did not address: > > It only works with pkg_* tools which were removed today, so why on earth > > would you try to save it? I thought you had specific reasons for specific > > ports but I cannot see any reason for this. > > I'm currently attempting to setup a _proper_ poudriere_ environment > to accommodate all of your requests/demands. So you don't understand that make check-plist make stage-qa make check-sanity portlint doesn't require poudriere? that you run those commands from the port itself? e.g. instead of "make install" you type "make check-sanity" ? > I understand that you > [perhaps rightfully so] reject redports as adequate. Fair enough. But > if you find/decide there are still issues with any of my submission(s). > Then just say so, and mark them, as such. I'll resolve them, and things > will continue to move on (ahead). As intended. IMHO I see no reason > to flatly reject everything I submit. and that's the problem. You don't realize that the stuff you are submitting is below acceptable. It's at a level that indicates that you have fundamental issues with the concept of staging and haven't followed the instructions of the staging link that I gave you (that you should have had long ago) It appears that you actually have no idea what the problems are even though I have spelled out EXACTLY why it was getting rejected. > The [my] submissions are not > _completely_ w/o merit. I have already vowed to resolve any outstanding > issues. As history has shown, I _do_ do so. Perhaps not in your > [desired] time frame. But, until I get poudriere setup properly, > I am forced to do the best I can, with what I have. No, you aren't. I asked you to stop submitting new ports. It was clear at that time there were major conceptional issues that needed to be resolved and continuing to submit grossly wrong patches were a waste of your time and our time. I've spent quite a bit of time personally with you and you've heeded none of my advice. Since you seem earnest, I have to assume that's not intentional, but rather a lack of understanding. I can't believe you didn't ready *anything* I've written in the last few weeks (your actions indicate you haven't read a word, but I find that hard to believe that's actually the case) You really need to step back and re-read literally everything I've written on all these PRs, and keep until you understand what I'm talking about.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #6) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #5) > > (In reply to John Marino from comment #4) > > > After giving up asking for poudriere, I repeatedly requested output of: > > > > > > make check-plist > > > make stage-qa > > > make check-sanity > > > portlint > > > > > > Not once did you comply. > > > It's untested. > > > > > > > > > I don't accept redports because as we have seen many times, it does not > > > check gross plist errors. It's essentially worthless for staging. It's > > > only good to check on all platforms after staging is confirmed. > > > > > > So yes, in this context it's untested. and you didn't even give links to > > > redports before so...? > > > > > > If you don't provide proof, it didn't happen. > > > > > > > > > The other thing about this port you did not address: > > > It only works with pkg_* tools which were removed today, so why on earth > > > would you try to save it? I thought you had specific reasons for specific > > > ports but I cannot see any reason for this. > > > > I'm currently attempting to setup a _proper_ poudriere_ environment > > to accommodate all of your requests/demands. > > So you don't understand that > make check-plist > make stage-qa > make check-sanity > portlint > doesn't require poudriere? that you run those commands from the port > itself? e.g. instead of "make install" you type "make check-sanity" ? > > > > > I understand that you > > [perhaps rightfully so] reject redports as adequate. Fair enough. But > > if you find/decide there are still issues with any of my submission(s). > > Then just say so, and mark them, as such. I'll resolve them, and things > > will continue to move on (ahead). As intended. IMHO I see no reason > > to flatly reject everything I submit. > > and that's the problem. > You don't realize that the stuff you are submitting is below acceptable. > It's at a level that indicates that you have fundamental issues with the > concept of staging and haven't followed the instructions of the staging link > that I gave you (that you should have had long ago) > > It appears that you actually have no idea what the problems are even though > I have spelled out EXACTLY why it was getting rejected. > > > > The [my] submissions are not > > _completely_ w/o merit. I have already vowed to resolve any outstanding > > issues. As history has shown, I _do_ do so. Perhaps not in your > > [desired] time frame. But, until I get poudriere setup properly, > > I am forced to do the best I can, with what I have. > > No, you aren't. > I asked you to stop submitting new ports. It was clear at that time there > were major conceptional issues that needed to be resolved and continuing to > submit grossly wrong patches were a waste of your time and our time. > > I've spent quite a bit of time personally with you and you've heeded none of > my advice. Since you seem earnest, I have to assume that's not intentional, > but rather a lack of understanding. I can't believe you didn't ready > *anything* I've written in the last few weeks (your actions indicate you > haven't read a word, but I find that hard to believe that's actually the > case) > > You really need to step back and re-read literally everything I've written > on all these PRs, and keep until you understand what I'm talking about. Sorry for all the bother, John. DO feel free to nuke this. I won't be pursuing this port any further. --Chris