On 06/10/12 12:37, Chris Rees wrote: > On 10 June 2012 11:12, Martin Sugioarto <martin_at_sugioarto.com> wrote: >> Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:09:09 +0700 >> schrieb Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd_at_ateamsystems.com>: >> >>> I get the feeling people are updating their ports tree and then >>> recompiling/reinstalling everything "just because" and then are >>> complaining when one thing breaks (its the only thing I can think of). >> >> Hi. >> >> But it does not need to break. Sometimes it would be enough just to >> test if the port compiles before committing it (I'm talking about >> libreoffice here which is broken). Some people rely on some essential >> ports. I can understand that porters are not Gods and make errors, but >> they should be fixed within hours, when they have been found on >> important ports. >> >> I mean, ports collection is sure great and this is one of the aspects >> why I am using FreeBSD, but at the moment FreeBSD is losing strength >> here, in my opinion. > > Er... people always test their commits. Sometimes edge cases will > creep in, such as the libreoffice failure which was due to different > configurations, but to suggest that the commit wasn't tested is quite > frankly insulting-- it built on a clean system perfectly well. > > Chris In do not see any insulting statement! Why those exaggerations?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:27 UTC