Re: nvidia-driver and no update in /usr/ports/UPDATING

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:39:58AM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:21:55 +0100
>tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> wrote:
>
>> Where, exactly, did I rant, in that report? Honestly, I can't
>> see where.
>
>	It's a rant because it's not actionable.
>
>	You failed to explain the impact on the user - you clearly know
>what the impact was but I couldn't tell from your bug report what the entry
>needed to tell the user just that you thought one was needed to tell people
>something about a name change.

This wasn't a "bug" to "fix" in the usual sense. My issue there
wasn't that the name changed per se, it was that there was no notice of 
it in UPDATING. My issue is that baseline changes that by policy should 
be recorded in UPDATING, are not and this is causing chaos.

I can accomodate a name change if it's added to UPDATING because 
UPDATING is something I regularly check (like every time before a 
pkg upgrade)

If a font name is changed then everything referencing that font 
name will fail to display unless the php (in this case) referencing
the font also changes its reference. This I would think would
be implicitly understood by the font maintainer.

If bash changed name of its installed binary to aildgjvoieaf, 
wouldn't you expect this to be in UPDATING?

>	A suggested entry would go a *long* way to getting it addressed -
>you clearly know what the entry should say having solved the problems
>yourself but you didn't bother to share your experience in detail.

Does the maintainer not know how to make an entry in UPDATING for a port
they're maintainer for? If so, that would be news to me.

>	Because you didn't provide a solution when you could and should
>have done so and you didn't make it easy for the triager to assess the
>importance of the bug.

My "solution" is in the bug. From the bug:

"The name of this font has changed to include the version number. 
Can something about this be put in /usr/ports/UPDATING ? 
Because otherwise it's easy to miss."

I was never asking to modify a program. I was asking for the fact it 
had been non-trivially modified to be put into UPDATING. I showed 
the consequences of the port update.Why was that not actionable?
-- 
J.