Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 11:32:04 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, perryh@pluto.rain.com Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs Message-ID: <201109080932.p889W4PJ023680@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: Your message "Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:20:27 BST." <CADLo83-4Hbq%2BCe5ADJvEQP7167wJt48C8aOfCW8RV=W96stMCw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Reference: > From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 07:20:27 +0100 > Message-id: <CADLo83-4Hbq+Ce5ADJvEQP7167wJt48C8aOfCW8RV=W96stMCw@mail.gmail.com> Chris Rees wrote: > --00151774047892f1af04ac680e7e > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 8 Sep 2011 02:29, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Reference: > > > From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> > > > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:45:51 -0700 > > > Message-id: <4E67F41F.70401@FreeBSD.org> > > > > Doug Barton wrote: > > > On 9/7/2011 10:02 AM, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > > Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> On 09/07/2011 00:07, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > >>> Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> Better to deprecate such non urgent ports, & wait a while > > > >>>>>>>>> after next release is rolled, to give release users a warning > > > >>>>>>>>> & some time to volunteer ... > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> That's an interesting idea, but incredibly unlikely to happen. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> It _certainly_ won't happen if those in charge refuse to try it! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> My point was that the idea is impractical ... > > > >>> > > > >>> How is it impractical to, as a rule, set an expiration date based > > > >>> on an anticipated future release date rather than only a month or > > > >>> two out from when the decision is made? > > > >> > > > >> As has repeatedly been explained to you ... > > > > > > > > I think you may have gotten me confused with someone else. > > > > > > Quite possibly. :) Saying the same things over and over again gets > > > mentally exhausting after a while. > > > > > > >> you're asking the wrong question. The question is, how does it > > > >> benefit the users to leave it in when we know that we're going > > > >> to delete it? Either way the user will discover that the port > > > >> is not easily available for installation when they update their > > > >> ports tree. > > > > > > > > Reread the first paragraph. Provided the port is still in the > > > > tree, when they try to build it the ports mechanism reports the > > > > FORBIDDEN/BROKEN/whatever which describes the problem, and the > > > > expiration date a month or two out. (If the expiration date is > > > > not included in the report, it should be.) They then know that > > > > they need to fix the port, or find someone to fix it, and they > > > > know _why_ it needs to be fixed. In contrast, if the port is > > > > _no longer_ in the tree, they have no clue why it disappeared. > > > > > > As was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the MOVED entry should > > > contain that information. Generally what I do when I actually remove a > > > port is to copy the DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN message into the MOVED file > entry. > > > > > > However, even if that isn't sufficient the entire story is still > > > available in the CVS history. And the user can always ask on > > > freebsd-ports@ if they are really confused and need help. > > > > > > >> The difference is that in the meantime people doing work on > > > >> the ports tree don't have to work around the old port (that's > > > >> going to be removed anyway). > > > > > > > > It's only going to be removed if no one fixes it. > > > > > > .. which is what happens in the vast majority of cases. > > > > > > > The whole > > > > point is that "release users" don't continuously monitor their > > > > ports -- they only upgrade when they become aware that they > > > > need to (e.g. when a newer release becomes available). > > > > > > And what we have been trying to explain to you is that this has never > > > been a supported mode of operation. We don't tie the ports tree to > > > specific releases, > > > > [ I've been reading & not writing , as real life priorities intrude, > > but that phrase has been repeated too often to ignore ...] > > > > FreeBSD doese "tie the ports tree to specific releases". We have ports > > freezes before each release > > We don't, actually. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/ports.html#Q13.4.1. http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.2R/schedule.html http://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/qa.html > --00151774047892f1af04ac680e7e > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Surplus Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17th Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ Oct.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201109080932.p889W4PJ023680>