From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 11:27:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DCA16A4CE for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:27:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.fillmore-labs.com (lima.fillmore-labs.com [62.138.193.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8ED843FB1 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:27:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from pd951a4b5.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.81.164.181] helo=fillmore-labs.com ident=b2czphsi0yaqbuzx) by mx2.fillmore-labs.com with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1AJeAp-000E5E-GL; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:27:35 +0100 Message-ID: <3FB13823.2080003@fillmore-labs.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:27:31 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fernan Aguero References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110152000.622db381.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <1068471598.38101.77.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110163623.GC93583@procyon.firepipe.net> <3FB02895.5050108@ciam.ru> <20031111001932.GA95315@toxic.magnesium.net> <20031111144221.GA527@iib.unsam.edu.ar> In-Reply-To: <20031111144221.GA527@iib.unsam.edu.ar> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH X-Complaints-To: abuse@fillmore-labs.com cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:27:43 -0000 Fernan Aguero wrote: [...] > On the other side, there are many ports that are just > applications: no other port depends on them, and there is > little risk if the port is not perfect. In my particular > case I'm thinking in the biology stuff, because that's my > main interest. I guess that only a minority of the FreeBSD > user base would ever install one of those ports. And for > those that do, what is the potential impact of doing a > less-than-perfect port? Breaking hier(7)? In this case, > the consequences of bad porting practices would impact the > port itself. I can't stress enough how many problems I had with the wrong PKGORIGINs (PR 58268) of a few ports in my portconflicts tool. I had to write a special subroutine looking up these ports in a list. If you want to work with tools on the ports tree (like building the INDEX, conflicts checking etc.) they have to adhere to more rules than just compiling and installing. Thats the reason for most of my PRs: Some ports break tools I'm workin on. I still favour the idea of pkgsrc-wip: it is a great place to try new things, a place for people that are not happy with the ports tree as it is now (which I can fully understand) and should be easy to integrate into the existing FreeBSD ports tree. Heck, I mentioned that thing so often, I should start the project myself. Oliver