svn commit: r402813 - head/misc/astrolog

[John Marino]

On 12/2/2015 9:26 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On 02.12.2015 10:30, John Marino wrote:
>> On 12/2/2015 7:29 AM, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>>> Author: ache
>>> Date: Wed Dec  2 06:29:36 2015
>>> New Revision: 402813
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/402813
>>>
>>> Log:
>>>   Unbreak port, update to the latest version of Swiss Ephemeris
>>>   (It does not require any patching, who mark the port BROKEN
>>>   can easily do it by yourself)
>>
>> This is an unfair comment.
>> The *distfile* changed.  That implies a poudriere run.
>> THe person marking BROKEN often does it in a batch of a several ports
>> that have starting failing in a bulk run.  They aren't looking at *any*
>> of them and rely on the maintainer or a user that cares to figure out
>> what happened.
>>
>> In this case, it's as much work as you can ask without having to
>> generate patches, so I don't agree with the second half of the comment
>> AT ALL.
>>
> 
> Well, this procedure makes unmaintained ports (like this one) doomed to
> die even on slightest change (distfile moving to other site etc).
> According to commit log I am a user that cares to figure out (and I
> don't want to be maintainer), but the person who marks is BROKEN is not
> bothered to investigate.

And?
There are two roles here:
1) Marking the port broken
2) Unbreaking the port.

You are implying the person that does role #1 is obligated to do role
#2, even if he/she is in the process of marking 40 ports broken.

In the best case, even if role #1 is only breaking 1 port, why do you
think they are obligated to anything other than the trivial fix.
IMO ports at freeBSD.org means "unmaintained", not "collectively maintained
though obligation".  I know others believe in the latter, but I have
plently of agreement with the former.

The two roles are not connected and role #1 has no obligation to role #2.

John