https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222095
#FreeBSD ports maintainers ought to be required to use poudriere to test their updates before they are accepted. There are few things more annoying than building a set of packages only to discover that one has an unsatisfied dependency that the maintainer did not notice.
When building on the “plain” system, any dependencies installed for any given port remain installed. A later port build can then – usually through autoconf – detect and use them.
In poudriere, each build starts with a “clean” environment, and if a port does not declare a dependency, it does not have the package available.
The Porters’ Handbook currently mentions poudriere, but there is no requirement to use it.
Examples:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222095
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220325
Python’s main package management tool, pip, is a bit of a blabbermouth. Have a look at its outgoing User-Agent header:
User-Agent: pip/9.0.1 {
"cpu":"AMD64",
"implementation":{
"name":"CPython",
"version":"3.6.2"
},
"installer":{
"name":"pip",
"version":"9.0.1"
},
"openssl_version":"OpenSSL 1.0.2k 26 Jan 2017",
"python":"3.6.2",
"system":{
"name":"Windows",
"release":"10"
}
}
The only thing missing is my shoe size.
I’m not the first to notice, but they apparently don’t see the problem: https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/4265. It’s for download/usage statistics, of course.
Well, that’s why we occasionally fork stuff.
User-Agent: pip/9.0.1 {"information-disclosure":"averted"}
That should be enough for them.
[Update: https://github.com/chrullrich/pip/tree/stfu]
Aus der Abteilung “Werbesprüche, über die vielleicht nochmal jemand hätte nachdenken sollen”, heute:
Here I spy
A butterfly
Flutter
By.
Phew! I just nearly abandoned my 60 kg (£120) order of All The Stations T-shirts because their web shop does not know E.123 notation. It eventually went through.
(PS: If you want to see how control freaks think, check out E.123 sections 2–4.)
