From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 12 05:05:14 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 27F3BC738C4 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:05:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [185.24.122.233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3BE11DC9 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:05:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from ultrabook.yoonka.com (188.29.165.226.threembb.co.uk [188.29.165.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uBC54qqS058914 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:04:53 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) X-Authentication-Warning: msa1.earth.yoonka.com: Host 188.29.165.226.threembb.co.uk [188.29.165.226] claimed to be ultrabook.yoonka.com Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <231ebf32-a99f-24ed-9e21-346f453500cb@gjunka.com> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:04:44 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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 05:05:14 -0000 On 12/12/2016 02:42, Janky Jay, III wrote: > Hello scratch, > > 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. >> There's always some piece of code that's missing and can't be >> found, or is the wrong version, et lengthy cetera. I've never >> done release engineering, but I honestly can't imagine how some >> of the stuff that makes its way into the ports tree ever got past >> QA. It would get someone sacked if it happened in industry. >> >> If the dev schedule would SLOW DOWN and the commitment switched >> to quality from the current emphasis on frequency, with separate >> trees for alpha-, beta-, and real release-quality, fully-vetted >> code, the ports system might become usable again. > This very, VERY rarely happens to me and I use ports *ONLY* in > production environments. If you could please provide examples and report > the issues to the port maintainer of the ports with issues, that would > greatly help this situation. (Please don't take this as an insult or > anything other than trying to be helpful...) Simply complaining about it > without providing any additional information is certainly not going to > improve anything. > > Being a port maintainer myself, I depend on people reporting any issues > they run into in order to provide the most robust and dependable port I > can. If people never reported any issues and I had no idea there was an > issue with my port, how would I fix it? So, please, PLEASE report any > issues with ports that aren't building. It's not too time consuming on > your part. Just a simple BUG report and how to re-produce and you're > finished. > > Kind Regards, > Janky Jay, III > > I second scratch. Building the ports with default options may not be an issue but I am rarely (if ever) able to build all 1000+ selected ports (using poudriere) with the options that I selected. Whenever I can I am raising issues with port maintainer but they very rarely get addressed, at least in timely fashion. Even with just 1000+ ports, if an issue takes a few weeks to resolve (which would be great) it's highly probably that at least one other port gets broken by the time the first issue is resolved. With that approach I would never be able to cleanly build all the ports that I need. So, to make at least some of the build successful, I have to revisit various options and try to disable them to verify which ones will allow me to build the ports successfully. It's not as much a compliant, as I understand it's all done by volunteers in their free time, but it makes me wonder how FreeBSD even gets its current popularity within the industry with such stability. Grzegorz