Bug 251796 - bsd.port.mk: make on unmaintained port outputs a URL that returns "Page Not Found"
Summary: bsd.port.mk: make on unmaintained port outputs a URL that returns "Page Not F...
Status: New
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Many People
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-12-13 04:12 UTC by Phil Budne
Modified: 2020-12-13 06:10 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Phil Budne 2020-12-13 04:12:40 UTC
While working on updating an unmaintained port (I'm the author of the package), running make outputs:

  ===>   NOTICE:

  The snobol4 port currently does not have a maintainer. As a result, it is
  more likely to have unresolved issues, not be up-to-date, or even be removed in
  the future. To volunteer to maintain this port, please create an issue at:

  https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla

  More information about port maintainership is available at:

  https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/contributing/portscontributing.html#maintain-port

But that URL gets me "Page not found."

(message from bsd.port.mk)
Comment 1 Phil Budne 2020-12-13 04:18:54 UTC
Meta bug: while entering this bug, the only choice under "Component:" was "Individual Port(s)", but now that the bug has been entered, the pulldown for Component includes "Package Infrastructure" and "Ports Framework"

I'm guessing this bug (251796), on which I'm entering this comment is a "Ports Framework" issue.

I don't know what component I should file the meta-bug (can't choose "Package Infratructure" or "Ports Framework" while entering a bug) should be filed against, or if it's a feature and not a bug!

P.S.
To drop names, I know Jordan Hubbard.
Comment 2 Mark Linimon freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2020-12-13 04:57:15 UTC
(In reply to Phil Budne from comment #1)

Bugmeister notes:

since it is in Mk/*.mk, yes, it's "Ports Framework".  But really it does not make as much difference as people assume -- in general, the same people look at ports PRs in both "Individual Ports" and "Ports Framework".

The choice to only show the former is intentional, due to the high number of errors when people submit PRs.

My personal opinion is that "Package Infrastructure" should never be shown to the general public.  It was intended only for "issues affecting the build machines @FreeBSD.org" and has never really been used for that purpose, instead only attracting false positives.

If you want to file a bug for the bugmeisters to look at, use Services/Bug Tracker.
Comment 3 Phil Budne 2020-12-13 06:10:31 UTC
Looks like all manner of URLs are hosed, including ones for the porter handbook that worked for me recently!

Perhaps this needs to be flung to the Documentation Engineering Team?