Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:57:27 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: <20161212135727.1c809063@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <ba08610a-3536-b347-c802-ca134b296246@unfs.us> References: <c5bc24cc-5293-252b-ddbc-1e94a17ca3a8@openmailbox.org> <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> <odkr4cdf8dant07thrav2ojn7bng98noj9@4ax.com> <ba08610a-3536-b347-c802-ca134b296246@unfs.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:42:07 -0700 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. I have a desktop with a lot of server ports installed on it and find that the build problems I have are overwhelmingly desktop related. Even on the desktop I don't find it to be more than an irritation.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161212135727.1c809063>