From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 12 20:17:28 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63B60CFC; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:17:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-out-02.shaw.ca (smtp-out-02.shaw.ca [64.59.136.138]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026042AFE; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:17:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.1 cv=UbGOdjJMTOnDdlSKs4VLEv47Nwxh2hlhayjdFxkzNJk= c=1 sm=1 a=88wlaMhBKVgA:10 a=Pm7fHyq9i4cA:10 a=QrugwKR0C_UA:10 a=wAGQQ9Az6v0A:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=ICAaq7hcmGcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=IbtKDeXwb2+SRU442/pi3A==:17 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=KC9ug_Y4AAAA:8 a=2teCRBWPAAAA:8 a=BWvPGDcYAAAA:8 a=E83meIRlwqFPDu_n6J4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=4wb3IDoU7wQA:10 a=V7tsTZBp22UA:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Received: from unknown (HELO spqr.komquats.com) ([96.50.7.119]) by smtp-out-02.shaw.ca with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2014 14:17:27 -0600 Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (slippy8 [10.2.2.6]) by spqr.komquats.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5629CF3; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7CKHPCk041054; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:17:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@komquats.com) Received: from slippy (cy@localhost) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.14.9/8.14.8/Submit) with ESMTP id s7CKHPaT041051; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:17:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@komquats.com) Message-Id: <201408122017.s7CKHPaT041051@slippy.cwsent.com> X-Authentication-Warning: slippy.cwsent.com: cy owned process doing -bs X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.6 Reply-to: Cy Schubert From: Cy Schubert X-os: FreeBSD X-Sender: cy@cwsent.com X-URL: http://www.komquats.com/ To: marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r364739 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/syslog-ng-devel sysutils/syslog-ng-devel/files In-Reply-To: Message from John Marino of "Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:07:50 +0200." <53EA7416.5080008@marino.st> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:17:25 -0700 Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Cy Schubert , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:17:28 -0000 In message <53EA7416.5080008@marino.st>, John Marino writes: > On 8/12/2014 21:56, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > On 8/12/2014 2:44 PM, John Marino wrote: > >> On 8/12/2014 21:39, Cy Schubert wrote: > >>> Author: cy > >>> Date: Tue Aug 12 19:39:33 2014 > >>> New Revision: 364739 > >>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/364739 > >>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r364739/ > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> Reintroduce syslog-ng-devel for 3.6.0alpha2. > >>> > >>> Submitted by: Peter Czanik (syslog-ng upli > ne) > >> > >> > >> Do Ports really need alpha quality -devel ports in the collection? > >> > >> If it were up to me I'd purge 90% of our -devel ports. I tried to start > >> a conversation about a policy for these with portmgr, but as usual, only > >> one person responded. I'd still like to have that conversation though. > >> This -devel port trend is disturbing. > >> > >> John > >> > > > > Why? Devel ports need testing and there are many users willing to use > > them. Poudriere-devel probably has more users than the main port right > > now, judging from feedback I have received. > > As ports directly to improve FreeBSD infrastructure, poudriere-devel and > pkg-devel are included in my 10%. (as in they are ok) > > As for why: > 1) They become a burden on everyone, even if they have a maintainer. > Sweeping changes have to be applied twice. For the few -devel ports that there actually are I don't think this is a biggie. > > 2) What if every port had a -devel version? Now we are taking 45k+ > ports. That's unrealistic.This would never happen. > > 3) -devel versions are poor quality often Not always. There are many GA versions of poorer quality than many -devel ports. > > 4) -devel versions are often neglected and are often older than the > stable version This can occur for many reasons. If they're neglected due to us, then delete the port. If the port is in between releases, then it's part of the release cycle. > > To me, they are more trouble than they are worth especially when the > ports are reset. I think there should be a pretty high bar for devel > ports, and maintainer need to justify why they want to convert the > FreeBSD community into a testers for third party software (which is the > reason I've heard). > > With the exception of FreeBSD functionality, keep the testing out of > ports. It will improve the quality and easy our collective maintenance > burder. Let's agree to disagree. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.