Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:28:52 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Pav, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>, Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/libX11 Makefile distinfo manpages pkg-plist ports/x11/libX11/files patch-src_ImUtil.c Message-ID: <20070607132852.edzi5pbds08wwss4@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070607091605.GB22049@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <200706061625.l56GP3lo043614@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070606200421.GA5453@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1181165084.76200.1.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070606214112.GB6716@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1181173452.30365.20.camel@vonnegut> <20070607014450.GA17218@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20070607015538.GB23820@soaustin.net> <20070607102229.98t8ak5kmoo8woco@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070607091605.GB22049@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> (from Thu, 7 Jun 2007 =20 05:16:05 -0400): > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:22:29AM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> (from Wed, 6 Jun 2007 >> 20:55:38 -0500): >> >> >On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:44:50PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >>The FreeBSD project does not have the resources (or desire) to effectiv= ely >> >>do full-time incremental X.org release engineering because of X.org >> >>changes being continuously pushed into ports. >> >> Who decides what is going in and what not? What changes are allowed to >> go in and which aren't (read: what's the definition of "important" >> here)? > > "Fixes an application crash" or "Fixes a security vulnerability" would > be good reasons. "Fixes some manpage typos" or "Adds a new cursor > theme" or "Adds some linux-specific cruft" would not be :-) I don't > want to have to be the guardian of this myself so I hope the x11@ > mailing list will self-regulate with a bit of guidance. > > Basically everyone needs to be aware that commits to x.org core ports > (those in the dependency path of xorg-libraries, basically) need to > come with a clear justification of why the update is required, so if > you are prepared to defend yourself with solid arguments on that point > then you probably have a reason to proceed. Ok, thanks. >> >The last I checked, i386 package builds take ~5 days, amd64 take ~7 days= , >> >sparc64 take more than 3 weeks. If we push point releases any faster th= an >> >these dates, we will never have current packages. I think this would be >> >a serious mistake. >> >> 4 weeks would be still too fast for changes to X11 ports, I assume. > > That kind of timescale should be manageable. Time will tell... :) >> >I've spent a lot of time looking at why packages are so far behind the >> >ports and the deep dependency trees are the major part of the problem. >> >> So switching to recording explicit dependencies only would give a >> speed improvement in this case (why shall we rebuild an application >> which depends on some gnome libs but doesn't make some X11 API calls >> directly, the package will not change significantly)? > > Sometimes a port doesn't care when a dependency changes, sometimes it > does - how do you tell those two cases apart with 100% accuracy? I > don't think you can. I think it's within the "what do we use as run-depends"-class, isn't =20 it? We don't get it right in some cases, but most of the time we get =20 it right. When we don't get it right it's a bug, and it is resolved =20 fast for VIPs (Very Important Ports) and is not that critical for =20 "niche-ports". For the actual-package-depends target (not committed yet, I hope it is =20 under testing in an exp run, don't forget the pkg-tools patch and the =20 clean target patch as they helps much) I have a simple patch which =20 allows to switch to explicit dependencies (not tested yet) on runtime. This would have to be tested in a tinderbox first (any volunteers =20 around?), as I expect some problems. After that an exp-run would be =20 interesting. Bye, Alexander. --=20 BOFH excuse #77: Typo in the code http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070607132852.edzi5pbds08wwss4>