svn commit: r385202 - head/java/junit
Kurt Jaeger
pi at FreeBSD.org
Sun May 3 06:49:13 UTC 2015
Hi!
> > > Thanks for update! Could you also commit the patch for libreoffice
> > > from this PR?
> >
> > The patch is submitted to the relevant PR:
> >
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199819
>
> This PR shows the problem with junit-4.11_1, I don't see why it's
> relevant to libreoffice problem with the newest junit.
Because junit was updated because it no longer built ? I see that one
argue both ways, but what's the gain ?
> > If someone from office@ approves it, I can commit it.
>
> Too late, you have already committed update for junit, so please
> just fix all dependent ports now.
Done for libreoffice.
Does that mean that I have implicit approval to commit the fix that
danilo proposed for java/berkeley-db as well ? So why isn't danilo
doing this 8-} ?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199869
I'm getting confused on those rules about maintainer approval
and other 'approval' rules, and more and more I come to the conclusion
that it's no longer the simple, rational rulebase that one can easily
grok.
If committing to one port implicit makes one responsible for other
ports beyond a certain 'depedency horizont', in a complex dependency
tree this might lead to huge amounts of additional work that
might become so huge as to not do it in the beginning. Is that
a sensible way to handle this ?
> Any comments on the second question in my previous mail?
Ups, I have not seen your second question, probably cutting
down on the quote would have made it easier to find ?
>From what I understand, junit used/included hamcrest in the past and
no longer does. I have not analysed whether there are cases
where junit is needed and hamcrest is not. If danilo wants to
comment on that ?
--
pi at FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 5 years to go !
More information about the svn-ports-all
mailing list