[23415] trunk/dports/archivers/zlib/Portfile

[Landon Fuller]

On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:20 AM, Mark Duling wrote:

> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at  
> 10:25 AM
> -0800 wrote:
>> Revision
>> [ http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/23415 ]23415
>> Author
>> landonf at macports.org
>> Date
>> 2007-03-31 10:25:27 -0700 (Sat, 31 Mar 2007)
>>
>> Log Message
>>
>> Claiming ownership of my port entirely.
>>
> Are there ports where you are listed maintainer that you shouldn't  
> be?  I
> think to be sure someone respects your maintainership, you should make
> sure that you are only listed as maintainer one ones you really  
> actively
> maintain.  I really wan't aware you were still active and I  
> supposed there
> were a bunch of ports that you used to maintain and currently  
> didn't but
> never formally relinquished.  For example, I just updated openldap  
> days
> ago and you are listed as maintainer.  But there have been 3  
> verifiable
> bugs filed against it for ages and the port was pretty outdated.

I'm pretty sure I'm still active =)
http://trac.macports.org/projects/macports/search?q=landonf&changeset=on

Of the three OpenLDAP bugs, the only bug actually assigned to me was  
an enhancement request. It was opened prior to trac ever sending e- 
mail, and so I never actually saw the bug. The port wasn't  
significantly outdated -- I was intentionally was tracking the 2.2.x  
branch.

That said, I saw the  bug that you filed on Wednesday, and it all  
looked fine. I had planned on addressing it this weekend, but you  
beat me to it.

> In my view, MacPorts only keeps functioning because of the efforts  
> of a
> few that sometimes need to bend the rules with some judgement, because
> there aren't enough people concerned with fixing bugs that we can
> reasonably expect those people to adhere to all the rules we set  
> up.  If
> we had more people doing it we could more closely adhere to the  
> standards
> we've setup.  A bureaucratic system with few people doesn't work  
> very well
> when those few have to choose between getting things done for  
> others and
> maximizing their volunteer time.
>
> I'm not criticizing or complaining, I'm just saying how things  
> appear to
> me because, frankly, I bend the rules a lot because I don't see  
> another
> way right now.  The project seems to have more users than it once  
> did and
> tickets are opened faster, but it doesn't seem like there are many
> responsive maintainers so that we rely on a few consistent bug  
> chasers and
> committers that sometimes bend the rules to keep from getting  
> swamped by
> tickets.

I agree that the maintainer flag should be considered a mutex -- I  
certainly don't have time to keep tabs on updates and bugs every  
single port I maintain.

However, I do think discretion is a must -- if you're white-space  
reformatting the entire port, doubling it in length and complexity,  
and adding dependence on undocumented private functions, something is  
probably wrong -- especially when it's something like zlib, which is  
a hugely important system dependency.

-landonf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20070331/d0b84cff/PGP.bin