Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/comms/asterisk18

[jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)]

On Dec 7,  3:55pm, John Marino wrote:
} On 7/17/2012 20:47, John Nemeth wrote:
} > On Dec 7,  4:26am, John Marino wrote:
} > }
} > } So reverting the commit is punishment?
} > } Because documented in PLIST or not, that file is getting installed on
} > } DragonFly.  When it's understood "why chan_mgcp is built only in some
} > } situations", then an alternative solution can be added.  I don't
} > } understand why one would remove a working solution without something
} > } ready to replace it.
} >
} >       It's not a working solution.  As you've been told before, when you
} > see an issue on Dragonfly, it quite likely exists elsewhere as well.
} > Making OS specific hacks is most likely wrong.  Most likely there
} > should be some kind of feature test.  And, yes, removing unapproved
} > gross hacks is appropriate.
} 
} I've replied in-depth offline, but for public benefit:
} I don't agree about the timeframe of removing the hack.
} Let's say there are 3 platforms out that that you were previously 
} unaware were generating this library, DragonFly being one.
} After the "hack", there are only two broken platforms.  The introduction 

     And, this is supposed to be better?

} of the (unapproved) hack informs you of a problem.

     An e-mail would inform me of the problem (I'm usually fairly
responsive to e-mails about Asterisk issues), and is the way things are
supposed to done.  It would also have given me a chance to work with
you to try to figure out the real problem, but apparently you aren't
interested in working with others to come up with real solutions, you
would rather just slap in a quick gross hack and move on.

}-- End of excerpt from John Marino