Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:22:46 -0400 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Cy Schubert <cy@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r364739 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/syslog-ng-devel sysutils/syslog-ng-devel/files Message-ID: <88E432AA-8DC7-4C8A-B530-C75AF32952AF@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <53EA7416.5080008@marino.st> References: <53ea6d76.6eb9.5599e7c9@svn.freebsd.org> <53EA6EBB.2010802@marino.st> <53EA7155.4060606@FreeBSD.org> <53EA7416.5080008@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12 Aug, 2014, at 16:07, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> = wrote: > 1) They become a burden on everyone, even if they have a maintainer. > Sweeping changes have to be applied twice. This is a very real issue and you are 100% correct. Oftentimes -stable = has fixes that -devel doesn=92t (or vice-versa). Perhaps requesting that = -devel ports be maintained by whomever maintains the -stable port would = help this? > 2) What if every port had a -devel version? Now we are taking 45k+ > ports. What if every port came with a can of beans? Now we are talking 45k+ = cans of beans. > 3) -devel versions are poor quality often And sometimes the last release was a billion years ago and -devel is the = only real option. We need to be able to provide the = last-officially-sanctioned release, but we also need to be able to = provide the living versions. mplayer and squirrelmail come to mind, and = mutt was the same for many years. > 4) -devel versions are often neglected and are often older than the > stable version This ties in with (1), I think, and is quite correct. Requiring that the = same person maintain both would help, and we should consider a policy = whereby -devel ports are marked IGNORE=3D as soon as the -stable port is = newer. Right now you have to manually inspect both versions to figure = out which one is actually newer. Hell, you have to do that anyway. postfix, postfix-current, postfix28, = postfix 29, postfix210. Is postfix the current stable (yes)? What about = squid, squid32, squid33. Is squid the current stable (no)? > 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). I disagree. Many people are happy running bleeding-edge stuff. Many = people PREFER running bleeding-edge stuff. I bet that we have users who = prefer FreeBSD over *BSD because they can always get the latest and = greatest. The vast selection of different options is one of the greatest = features of our ports system. Don=92t discount the worth of something = just because it doesn=92t matter to you. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?88E432AA-8DC7-4C8A-B530-C75AF32952AF>