svn commit: r505045 - head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 25/06/2019 6:27 am, Piotr Kubaj wrote:
> OK, for me maintainer-feedback entry means that the patch is accepted.
> 
> When I wasn't a committer, I used to set maintainer-feedback to indicate 
> that I accept the patch. When I send PR's nowadays, some maintainers 
> also do that.
> 
> On 19-06-24 21:54:56, Tobias C. Berner wrote:
>> I set maintainer feedback, because I, as the maintainer gave you the
>> feedback, that "I think this is wrong" :)
>> If I liked that patch, I would have set the patch-approved flag on it.
>>
>>
>> All that said, thanks for "fixing" it, but I still would prefer a real 
>> fix,
>> that we can upstream rather than that.
>>
>>
>> mfg Tobias
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 21:46, Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj at anongoth.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I didn't use "implicit". Doesn't maintainer-feedback + mean that 
>>> it's
>>> accepted?
>>>
>>> On 19-06-24 21:34:09, Tobias C. Berner wrote:
>>> >Moin moin
>>> >
>>> >Sorry, but I explicitely did not approve this :) so using implicit 
>>> on it,
>>> >is a bit of a crappy move.
>>> >
>>> >mfg Tobias
>>> >
>>> >On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Author: pkubaj
>>> >> Date: Mon Jun 24 18:10:55 2019
>>> >> New Revision: 505045
>>> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/505045
>>> >>
>>> >> Log:
>>> >>   sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard: fix build with GCC-based architectures
>>> >>
>>> >>   Link with libinotify explicitly to fix linking on GCC 
>>> architectures.
>>> >>
>>> >>   PR:           238702
>>> >>   Approved by:  tcberner (maintainer, mentor)
>>> >>
>>> >> Modified:
>>> >>   head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile
>>> >>
>>> >> Modified: head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> ============================================================================== 
>>>
>>> >> --- head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile    Mon Jun 24 
>>> 18:07:12 2019
>>> >>       (r505044)
>>> >> +++ head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile    Mon Jun 24 
>>> 18:10:55 2019
>>> >>       (r505045)
>>> >> @@ -23,5 +23,6 @@ OPTIONS_SUB=  yes
>>> >>
>>> >>  INOTIFY_DESC=          Filesystem alteration notifications using
>>> inotify
>>> >>  INOTIFY_LIB_DEPENDS=   libinotify.so:devel/libinotify
>>> >> +INOTIFY_LDFLAGS=       -linotify
>>> >>
>>> >>  .include <bsd.port.mk>


What could we (bugmeister) name the flag so that it was clear that

a) The flag is about needing feedback
b) The flag has nothing to do with / does not mean approval?