Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>