Everyone can see you have an agenda. Please stop being so rude.
max porter <mporter...@outlook.com> wrote: > If it doesn't represent policy then change the name of the section otherwise > it just seems to read as "rules for thee and not for me". This implication > also is reinforced by the behavior of developers and comments in this thread. > > I did slightly misspeak about adoption of OpenBSD though which I admit to, > but you also didn't read the document. And I quote: > > "The goal is to get all ported applications to support OpenBSD. To achieve > this goal, feed patches to support running on OpenBSD back to the application > maintainer. (If you are not the port maintainer, check with them first. There > may be a reason why they have deliberately not done this)." > > That may not be adoption of the OS but support for it in applications. > "Deliberately not done this" should not include they just don't want to, or > feel like not following what is supposedly a policy. > ________________________________ > From: Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:40 AM > To: max porter <mporter...@outlook.com> > Cc: Landry Breuil <lan...@openbsd.org>; ports@openbsd.org <ports@openbsd.org> > Subject: Re: Patch and policy inquiry > > On 2020/12/11 12:34, max porter wrote: > > Thanks for the info and your comment is fair. > > > > However I would argue the maintainer started it with the tone of his > > comment, given he may not have known about the noted policy which one > > could say was source of truth and the thing "telling him what to do". > > > > I cannot see that attitude helping to foster adoption of OpenBSD as > > developers may not use OpenBSD, and would be unaware of changes needed > > to support it unless packagers notify/assist them rather than keeping > > patches to themselves. > > OpenBSD is not trying to foster adoption. If it's useful to you then > great. If not then that's also great, there are plenty of different OS > to use in different circumstances. > > > To be clear are you implying the policy only applies to some and not > > all who help with OpenBSD? > > The ports faq sections are an attempt to write-up how things are > usually done to get new contributors up to speed without asking too > many questions. > > They do not represent policy. There are some problems with them, > do not take them as being 100% correct. > > > I will likely not be providing further info on the PR as I don't > > directly use OpenBSD so have no way to properly validate the > > changes, hence the mail asking for additional assistance and the > > note for him in it. > > It doesn't really make sense to open a PR for something which you are > not involved in and have no way of testing, that is just frustrating > for everyone involved. >
