From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 12 14:05:59 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA817C72458 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:05:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from nm18-vm9.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm18-vm9.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.62.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68CC287 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:05:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1481551455; bh=65yuZcRHFu5UbGTXsVegWYtC/Pbq4Gos3XiulnvYw5M=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=x1G/doFMnZP/Wfl7m9DQAwyOEd+h8a0zXP/S/v9QoSh8phFiyCnJUAerMaMkjJUFhq6XtigbwYunphxyX+21/xIR0pPj2ptrdF3h/L/fXmvdBLA0EoE+8apnyg66aXWjAIoIoWFmvl+DuRy4kD5DdLQSYLNTl0dD9f/84vwZ4rI= Received: from [216.39.60.173] by nm18.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2016 14:04:15 -0000 Received: from [67.195.22.118] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2016 14:04:15 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp113.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2016 14:04:15 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 737096.31861.bm@smtp113.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: LddMrr8VM1kzX1elMV_FRWEb1mlpH_sfS7Jg71rYg3.BAMS Vwhx2B2yZxDuUkoJPfBiOz5OZht1SYcnZ3kiYzS.y7ZcSQu2wGyqGCO3MYEa zJsjgXJcN21wC8UYZRQw84c_9ShCbcPT82kXuz25E8qJt4lrLZ.10S.74Y.6 YPiiVQeRXqILMQDmBRWNh_nXvZhoKzUchvSOaJrjyI1vL.XPnLZgn7zzAfEb mKbdy0prXIliECT.C724.uASQ2s2xdHcAjb9OPshdhZS9E5nBSQaZSf1vJT9 d.ggkj3pGRikUpbKYxiVICEei0DuagWtmW1H7x144jVyprSwZpBswPlF7t1u ylKHso2RRWoocZcvtLR3mbY3zE1gD60zaqocf8gLebnPJ3ZzW6otvj8EDF.0 Up.l13rSz4zNkyqwr4PyZ0HZosy._bcvk_tIMEIU_JwICLiT4Ck3pIenqX7s 77E2Ks90c9vqpJH3M5QkRUFb0xZtua9PZC2o5oz2z4Dky8Fc.ff43vsGKSNi 0tqjizaAeCuWde5AryWFlhRTLHxA_6UZmQa5omYzsuUoe0YAK_wf1lRhMsL1 E X-Yahoo-SMTP: pPvqnOaswBBbYZLVYFzvU7GaowLcbNioPp.aF8KvOjZk From: To: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:04:16 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> <5s3t4c576qeivfr32d2j7u1fm8jkia97jf@4ax.com> <20161212125557.GN2648@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <20161212125557.GN2648@home.opsec.eu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:05:59 -0000 [Default] On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:55:57 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >Hi! > >> >> On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65535@att.net wrote: >> >>> I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because >> >>> I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. >[...] >> >Note that there are over 26000 ports, over 1600 port maintainers and >> >hundreds of third party projects get updated every day. While the port >> >maintainers spend a good portion of their spare time trying to keep it >> >building there will be times that some ports fail to build. >> >> Which, I think you must agree, is a prima facie case for >> lengthening the release cycle. > >While I can understand where this comes from, it can be read as >"slow down the world, it's too fast" 8-} Well, that part of the world is under our control, and it's currently not working at all well, so...? > >> Perhaps The Major Problem currently is that the makefile goes and >> fetches code chunks from sources that are out of our control. [...] > >> Contrast that with how it would be if the maintainer got one copy >> of every potential chunk at the beginning of the cycle and stored >> it in ports so that everyone who builds the port builds against a >> known-good set of bits. It would be both more stable and faster. >> But that's not how it's done. Why not? > >As far as I know: The idea was to track upstream, not try to become >upstream. Otherwise the changeset (distfiles) repositories would >be come much larger to maintain on the FreeBSD side. I'm sure that's true. But it's not working, and in fact can't work except by accident because it's uncontrolled. Your point about the distfiles repositories is well-made. How about storing them centrally, then, but only download them to the local boxes for the build. I.e., portsnap would fetch what it fetches now except for distfiles. Then if someone does some build, all the files for the build would be slurped from one of the portsnap.freebsd.org distfile mirrors. And if only the production-quality code were stored centrally--nothing beta or [shudder] alpha, that would drop the storage requirements considerably. I used to be appalled at seeing something being pulled in that was at v0.03 or something similarly horrible. People who like living dangerously with pre-alpha code can get their from the originators, just as they do now.