Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 21:01:36 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Grzegorz Blach <magik@roorback.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD needs fresh Blood! Message-ID: <AANLkTimR3hPEiw1rzVmmbJ9LaEKz8TuKA4q4uBkQB5-G@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D73D464.3070806@roorback.net> References: <AANLkTi=d5hP-WHPQVJYk9%2B7gXd-3d5j_wgypz7QM2A6X@mail.gmail.com> <4D73D464.3070806@roorback.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/6/11, Grzegorz Blach <magik@roorback.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote: ... >>> First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports. ... > Multiple trees don't help me a lot, portmaster became fools. > There is no significant difference if I use version control system or > portshaker to merge trees. I'm not so sure. But in any event, maybe you can elaborate on what you mean by portmaster becoming a "fool"? ... >>> Another possibility is replace ports in disk, but after upgrade tree eg. >>> with portsnap I lose my changes, and portmaster want to rebuild these >>> ports to stable release. ... >> system that can import CVS), which will make merging and reverting >> changes easier. And naturally you shouldn't run updating tools until >> you've modified your tree. > > But I won't resign from use updating tools, even when I use merged tree. > Because I use merged tree all the time. No one is asking you to. But obviously you'll have to use the tools at the right time, and in the right manner, if you are going to be experimenting with different sets of ports. It doesn't sound as if you are doing that now, based on your reports. If you really want to use portmaster, and you don't want to be troubled with rebuilding the index, then maybe you could ask the portmaster maintainer to implement an option that ignores the index, and relies solely on the ports tree, if there isn't such an option already. Or examine the various incremental update methods I cited earlier. ... > I known that are many different ways to merge ports from different > sources, but none of them are simple and fast to use it for first time. > > Look at last calls for testers: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-February/065884.html > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-February/065983.html > > There are only links to tarballs, without address to repository. > I must download tarballs, commit ports to my tree and merge it with > official ports. > > Another CFT: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-February/066007.html > > There is address for repository, but I still need merging trees > and rebuild index for portmaster. > > > I thing if testing ports will be simpler, more people can do this, > and want to do this. I proposed stable and current trees, but maybe > one official merge tool, which is easy to setup will be better, or > something completely different. Okay, so we could make a webpage that contains some recommendations and instructions for those interested in testing. And we could make a central repository using a version control system that has efficient branching, where committers could be asked to add major changes in separate branches, so that it would be easier to test them. (I'm not saying one unstable branch, because I think it would be difficult to isolate and solve problems when mixing lots of different changesets.) Those are reasonable suggestions. But of course, these suggestions would require more work from committers, and won't make testing completely painless. They would be roughly equivalent to the case you mention above, where there was a repository -- yet you still seemed reluctant to test in that case. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimR3hPEiw1rzVmmbJ9LaEKz8TuKA4q4uBkQB5-G>