# "... pgp-2.6.3i is marked as broken on amd64 ..."



## gladiola (Mar 18, 2016)

I got an error message when compiling from ports.  The world's most important encryption program is being marked as broken and, therefore, will not compile.

A LARGE WARNING about this should have appeared on the release notes!   Really, the entire release's value is diminished for me if a configuration cannot run PGP.  I was very surprised to see this.

PGP 2.X has been an important part of my life for decades.

What's being done to get this fixed?


----------



## SirDice (Mar 18, 2016)

It's not in the release notes because ports have nothing to do with the FreeBSD version. All versions on all architectures use the same ports tree.


----------



## cpm@ (Mar 18, 2016)

GnuPG is a complete and free replacement for PGP (security/gnupg20).


----------



## kpa (Mar 18, 2016)

To really hammer the message home, anything ports related will not appear in the release notes, ever. Ports are third party software that has been ported to FreeBSD using the provided ports(7) infrastructure. The FreeBSD security team or the release engineering team take no responsibility for third party software, it's suitability for your use or it's (lack of) functionality when used in FreeBSD. Those responsibilities are on the individual port maintainers and the portmgr@ team.


----------



## gladiola (Mar 18, 2016)

So, if you are the keepers of one of the most internationally significant encryption programs for the past 30 years, and your copy breaks, you should not bother with anything more than a one-line error message.  Got it.  I am shocked at your complete lack of professional responsibility.  It's not someone else's job.  It's not Phil Zimmerman's job to fix the port for you.  Instead, he got hammered with a vicious lawsuit in the 90's so that you could have this at all.  Keep it up and maintain it.  

If it was working in FreeBSD 10.1, with installations I ran just a few weeks ago; and, now that encryption is in the news your copy is suddenly broken, saying, "It's not my problem," is weak sauce.  Quite frankly, I dare you to prove that it is broken at all, and not simply marked that way for someone's arbitrary agenda.  

Those other programs are not satisfactory replacements, either.  Fix PGP 2.6.x International right away.  It is very important for people everywhere.

If you can't actually report on the question, which is "What is being done to fix this," then please don't bother with sending a useless, time-wasting reply.  If it is broken, then I expect a report on what is broken, how that break was discovered, and what we can do to get it fixed.  

Stop being slugs, and start acting like programmers.  Your responses did not answer the question, meet standards of basic responsibility expected of all programmers everywhere, or do anything to promote solving the problem.  Get back on track.


----------



## SirDice (Mar 18, 2016)

gladiola said:


> If it was working in FreeBSD 10.1, with installations I ran just a few weeks ago; and, now that encryption is in the news your copy is suddenly broken, saying, "It's not my problem," is weak sauce.  Quite frankly, I dare you to prove that it is broken at all, and not simply marked that way for someone's arbitrary agenda.


You are mistaken. It was marked broken over 2 years ago. And because *all* versions of FreeBSD use the same ports tree it is also marked broken on FreeBSD 10.1. Probably the only reason it worked was because you installed an older version of the port (before it was marked as broken).

https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=338976



> It's not someone else's job. It's not Phil Zimmerman's job to fix the port for you.


Correct, it's the port maintainer's job. Which, in this case, is ports@FreeBSD.org. Which means there is no maintainer for it. Ergo, it depends on people like you to fix it and submit patches. If nobody bothers to do that it will stay broken. If it's been marked broken long enough it will eventually be completely removed from the ports tree.

You appear to be under the impression there are people being payed to maintain ports. This is not the case. Ports are a community effort, nobody is getting paid for it. Things aren't fixed by magic, it requires someone to take the time and submit patches for it. 



> Quite frankly, I dare you to prove that it is broken at all, and not simply marked that way for someone's arbitrary agenda.


What's stopping you from removing this line from the Makefile and trying it yourself?

```
BROKEN_amd64= unable to validate signatures
```


----------



## kpa (Mar 18, 2016)

None of here are the port maintainer for that port (as mentioned above it has no maintainer surprise surprise) and even if you see people here who do maintain ports and would have the skills to do so it's not their responsibility in any way to do anything about it. It's completely up to the users of that PGP port to pick up the task and fix it. That's the way FreeBSD ports has worked since the beginning and will continue to work.


----------



## kpa (Mar 18, 2016)

To answer your question "how", here is an outline what you should do with an unmaintained port.


Look at the Makefile of the port and look trough the SVN history of it to see when the port became abandoned and why.
Do the same with reasons why it's marked BROKEN/IGNORED/etc if that's the case.
Test the port on the platform(s)/environment where it's broken, take build logs using for example script(1).
Try the simple fix of just removing the BROKEN/IGNORED/etc line from the Makefile. Take build logs.
When that does not work look deeper into where the breakage is and what causes it.
...potentially lots of work with the source and patches...
The port finally works.
Submit a working port as a PR at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi with you as the new maintainer.


----------



## marino (Mar 18, 2016)

gladiola said:


> <snip>
> Keep it up and maintain it.
> <snip>
> If it is broken, then I expect a report on what is broken, how that break was discovered, and what we can do to get it fixed.
> ...



Why are you taking this authorative tone of voice?
You're acting like a wronged client, but you haven't paid for any services and nobody owes you a damn thing.
Where you get off acting this this?  You're coming off as bad mannered, if not an outright troll.  Good luck in enticing anyone to fix that for you with that vinegar.


----------

