Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:22:42 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r243554 - in head/usr.sbin/pkg_install: add create delete info lib updating version Message-ID: <20121203192242.GC5305@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20121203104526.5041f0eefe10045375b77df1@FreeBSD.org> References: <201211260511.qAQ5B7DQ002346@svn.freebsd.org> <20121128170032.730be5fab68dba2a09aaa14e@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgk8y_g803nLPQd=O0eSH836UnD3SbGx8WM_Lehx=h4U7w@mail.gmail.com> <20121128183422.714562856f27371c95d2a84e@FreeBSD.org> <20121129073846.GG97474@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121130144040.99559ed924a48b909cbd3c4b@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-YAd-xN4KKAoSLCyq7v=ybz6R_F%2B=R1f57hkVouDhvyA@mail.gmail.com> <20121203104526.5041f0eefe10045375b77df1@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 10:45:26AM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 08:52:52 +0000 > Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> mentioned: >=20 > >=20 > > UPDATING, yes. Also as I reminded you in IRC last week, users of -CURR= ENT > > are expected to follow -current@. Users of ports are also strongly > > recommended to read -ports-announce. >=20 > Repeating that several times does not make it true. This was also sent to current@ >=20 > >=20 > > What are you trying to achieve here? You discussed this previously, and > > got exactly the same answer. There were extensive discussions over it = in > > ports@. >=20 > I'm trying to point out, that this commit (and previous pkgng ones) was m= ade > without proper peer review and consulations, which is a recommended pract= ice > in THIS project. Doing so hurts not only the committer reputation (which= I > frankly do not care about), but the project image as a whole. That is good I don't care about my reputation either. But I do care about t= he project image, and lots of very large companies with large freebsd setup se= nt me mails thank the pkgng people for our work and how much it simplifies their = life about managing their servers, because pkgng can reliably upgrade packages, = and fits nicely with puppet/chef/cfengine. they also appreciate how easy a new FreeBSD installation is with pkgng. Of course pkgng is far from perfect but it is actually better than pkg_inst= all and the bottleneck to improve the pkgng is now the ports tree which lacks l= ot of thing to be able to produce better binary packages. And for that we need pk= gng to be the default backend of the ports tree. >=20 > I really don't want to go in and revert these changes, but I want to find= a > reasonable solution. It's not the first time an unreviewed ports-related > change is being committed to a tree by that hurts us, who actually use Fr= eeBSD > and not consider it a personal playground. Sorry but I consider companies with 1K+ server using FreeBSD not a personnal playground, and lot's of them are really happy with the direction the ports= tree and package management on FreeBSD is taking Bapt --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlC8/AIACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EznhQCgnTaHasagdnQrx5JfGVqr+yzV 4XwAoIZALZ5grLd+qIgiV8rfkMNv/SyJ =sP9j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121203192242.GC5305>