Report created on Thu Jul 30 16:13:00 2015. back to main menu


Enter a new maintainer (partial match is OK) to get information about their FreeBSD ports:

Maintainer: 

For explanatory information and summary details, see the notes below.

portname maintainer build error logs Problem Reports Responsible
databases/libdrizzle bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
devel/ccache bdrewery@FreeBSD.org   200076: devel/ccache does not honour /ccache.conf bdrewery@FreeBSD.org
devel/cppunit bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
devel/gearmand bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
devel/gearmand-devel bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
devel/gumbo bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
devel/privman bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
devel/py-jellyfish bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
irc/eggdrop bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
irc/eggdrop-devel bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
irc/rbot bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
math/miracl bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
net/6tunnel bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
net/librsync1 bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
net/zebra bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
ports-mgmt/portupgrade bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
ports-mgmt/portupgrade-devel bdrewery@FreeBSD.org   177365: [patch] ports-mgmt/portupgrade-devel enhancements bdrewery@FreeBSD.org
ports-mgmt/poudriere-devel bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
ports-mgmt/poudriere bdrewery@FreeBSD.org   180924: ports-mgmt/poudriere does not write changed port config bdrewery@FreeBSD.org
181799: ports-mgmt/poudriere: [PATCH] allow in-line comments in ports-list bdrewery@FreeBSD.org
200391: ports-mgmt/poudriere: Missing packets after bulk build bdrewery@FreeBSD.org
security/gnutls bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
security/openssh-portable bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
security/openssh-portable-devel bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
shells/dash bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
sysutils/beadm bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
sysutils/beadm-devel bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
sysutils/daemontools bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
sysutils/nfsping bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
sysutils/zfstools bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
www/suphp bdrewery@FreeBSD.org      
ports shown: 29   ports with build errors: 0 ports with outstanding PRs: 3  
ports with either build errors or PRs: 3

Notes:

Clicking on each column heading will cause the report to be redone sorted by that column. Clicking again will reverse the sort.

The portname column includes links to a more complete overview for that port.

The maintainer column includes links to a page showing the status of all ports for that maintainer.

The build error logs column represents the list of unique errors noticed in any build environment (if any). The errors are listed alphabetically. Each entry is a link to a particular errorlog. (In cases where the same error occurs in multiple build environments, the latest errorlog is used.)

The list of build errors that are detected, and a short description of each one, can be found here.

The PRs (if any) for the given port are listed numerically in the Problem Reports column. Thus, for each port, they should also be in order from earliest to latest.

Currently, no effort is made to correlate any individual build error with any individual PR. They are listed in adjacent columns only for your viewing convenience.

The underlying technology of this report relies on trying to extract information from the existing PR database entries. These entries are entered by human users using the send-pr command. As such, the quality of the entries varies greatly.

The fastest, and easiest, information is gleaned from a PR entry whose subject line contains the port category and port name, separated by a slash. However, if this algorithm only flagged those, it would miss nearly 50% of the ports PRs, not to mention all the 'framework' PRs.

So, as an extension, various heuristics are used to guess what it is the user really intended. See the code in prQueryUtils.py for the gory details. What's important to understand is this: there is no possible algorithm that will correctly identify all the ambiguous PRs without getting a few false identifications and still run in less than geological time. So, before you are tempted to file a PR on this algorithm itself, read the code to understand its design tradeoffs, and then consider instead filing followup PRs to the ambiguous PRs that would disambiguate them instead. Thanks -- the author.