[MacPorts] #52144: mariadb: support for mpkg / mdmg

[Craig Treleaven]

> On Sep 4, 2016, at 8:54 PM, Lawrence Velázquez <larryv at macports.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2016, at 8:32 PM, MacPorts <noreply at macports.org> wrote:
>> 
>> #52144: mariadb: support for mpkg / mdmg
>> -----------------------------+-----------------------
>> Reporter:  ctreleaven@…    |      Owner:  pixilla@…
>>     Type:  enhancement     |     Status:  new
>> Priority:  Normal          |  Milestone:
>> Component:  ports           |    Version:
>> Resolution:                  |   Keywords:
>>     Port:  mariadb-server  |
>> -----------------------------+-----------------------
>> 
>> Comment (by ctreleaven@…):
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> Barring objections, I plan commit these changes under openmaintainer in
>> the next few days.  I feel the startupitem to launchd plist changes are
>> relatively low risk.  I'll try to handle anything that might crop up.
> 
> This is the MacPorts Guide’s description[*] of the openmaintainer policy:
> 
> 	If a port's maintainer contains the address
> 	<!openmaintainer at macports.org>, this means that the author
> 	allows minor updates to the port without contacting him first.
> 	But permission should still be sought for major changes.
> 
> While limited in scope, your changes are anything but minor (the patch
> is 181 lines!), and committing them would clearly violate the spirit of
> the openmaintainer guideline.
> 
> You’d be better off invoking the 72-hour maintainer timeout policy.
> 
> [*] https://guide.macports.org/chunked/project.update-policies.html#project.update-policies.nonmaintainer
> 
You’re right, I should have referenced maintainer timeout.  I tried to contact Bradley a week ago today with no response.

Not to belabour the issue, but should it not be the impact to port users that determines whether a change is “minor” or not?  The number of lines, by itself, doesn’t necessarily determine that impact.   For example, a 1 or 2 line change in one of the database ports might make a new database engine the default.  That would be much more signficant that what I’ve proposed.  At the heart of it, the proposed changes are:

1) Use an upstream launchd plist.

2) Enable packaging where it has never worked before.

Nonetheless, whether this is “maintainer timeout” or “openmaintainer”, I don’t want to create problems with the port.  I welcome any and all feedback.

Craig