On 2017/08/31 21:34, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> but on the other hand, we don't import stuff witch is tested, new and
> ready (The history of ports@ and openbsd-wip is full them -- I don't
> want to talk about the reasons! We all know them).
Well since you brought it up on the list...
Some things (both on ports@ and in openbsd-wip) are tested and good
and just need another reviewer, some of them are junk. And some of
them finally got there but took so long to get into shape that nobody
remembers if they're finished or not, or arrived as part of a flood
of ports and nobody can keep track of which have been looked at or
not.
openbsd-wip was meant to be a working place, to polish ports and get
them ready before submitting them. But actually it's now a mixture
of actual WIP, abandoned ports, and I haven't checked recently but
it's quite likely there are a number of things in there which are
*older* than the version in CVS, and not really generally all that
useful..
Tips to submitters to avoid things getting trapped:
- don't send a whole stack of ports all at once, just keep a few
"on the fly" at a time. especially if you're new to porting, time
and time again we see a bunch of submissions and all have similar
basic problems.
- get the ports in great shape before sending them. your makefile
should look like makefiles from other ports in the tree!. portcheck
and lib-depends-check etc should either be clear or you should
explain why not. if you're already known for sending good clean
ports, people with a few minutes to spare will be more likely
to look at yours rather than someone else's...
> This is how it works even when ports disappear. Ask the vifm users!
pfft, there were 2 OKs for one of the versions of that.
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=146550074519357&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=146550839522061&w=2
No comments:
Post a Comment