Re: [ports-i386@freebsd.org: linux-f10-flashplugin-10.3r181.34 failed on i386 9]

[Doug Barton]

On 08/11/2011 21:41, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> I'm talking about stability here. Adobe silently shipped another version
> and our port become unbuildable because distfile wasn't available anymore.

The correct answer to this problem is to update the affected ports.

--

Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/

_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-emulat...@freebsd.org"

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-...@muc.de

[per...@pluto.rain.com]

Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 21:41, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> > I'm talking about stability here. Adobe silently shipped
> > another version and our port become unbuildable because
> > distfile wasn't available anymore.
> The correct answer to this problem is to update the affected
> ports.

That certainly is the correct mid- and long-term solution to
any given occurence.

It still leaves the port broken from the disappearance of the
previous distfile until the maintainer has time to update the
port. That is likely to be a not-insignificant length of time,
because we cannot reasonably expect port maintainers -- who are
usually volunteers -- to drop everything in order to immediately
fix this sort of problem.

[Doug Barton]

On 08/13/2011 01:00, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> It still leaves the port broken from the disappearance of the
> previous distfile until the maintainer has time to update the
> port.

Yup.

> That is likely to be a not-insignificant length of time,
> because we cannot reasonably expect port maintainers -- who are
> usually volunteers -- to drop everything in order to immediately
> fix this sort of problem.

For popular ports the intersection of committers who care and are able
to do something useful about it is substantially more than zero.

Doug

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 8/13/2011 1:00 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:

> Doug Barton<do...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 21:41, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
>>> I'm talking about stability here. Adobe silently shipped
>>> another version and our port become unbuildable because
>>> distfile wasn't available anymore.
>> The correct answer to this problem is to update the affected
>> ports.
>

> That certainly is the correct mid- and long-term solution to
> any given occurence.
>
> It still leaves the port broken from the disappearance of the
> previous distfile until the maintainer has time to update the
> port. That is likely to be a not-insignificant length of time,
> because we cannot reasonably expect port maintainers -- who are
> usually volunteers -- to drop everything in order to immediately
> fix this sort of problem.

It never ceases to amaze me how quick non-maintainers are to volunteer
maintainters time to drop everything and rebuild a port.

Ted