From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 12 12:56:09 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 1B025C73FF6 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:56:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D007A1D47 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:56:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cGQ97-000NCo-MR; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:55:57 +0100 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:55:57 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger To: scratch65535@att.net Cc: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: <20161212125557.GN2648@home.opsec.eu> References: <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> <5s3t4c576qeivfr32d2j7u1fm8jkia97jf@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5s3t4c576qeivfr32d2j7u1fm8jkia97jf@4ax.com> 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 12:56:09 -0000 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-} > 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. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !