From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Feb 9 15:50:47 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78C4AA3056 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:50:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from royce.williams@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-x232.google.com (mail-ob0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BBAE164E for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:50:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from royce.williams@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ob0-x232.google.com with SMTP id ba1so188960151obb.3 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 07:50:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=6CJMYrPhCQg8FgQfisMvOcVqa8aZ/69wO8wGnLaY6Zk=; b=riEXeX2nIprCUsv3O4tuCbYYfi1tEIj0qpFpm6hepO2Xws509KkHY+BQyvTvFFBu3j J7dayKS73bG9KDRzzVYqn8+QXFYNqT+tM+wjxzc+rQqqiWr6Usf3dvfWfhL/E35g0Qv7 7yocmD63mT4+uMu9k7jzbVnJmL1wnIqDudNizw048l3Q83SmDkofSxArnZ7Uf5rX/U+7 yvclmhsRIN7UomjGoI54pNreu1vYI24SYRxRzLbuWr2l/GtYCGVdgo6/N2C5dj7tf8Dt Yq5YiUfvU99LK+qJ37usZiRBXg7PCYknVcYm+qK7X6nNgPsUKlzWyKRymB1eO7ymGFTt XyIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=6CJMYrPhCQg8FgQfisMvOcVqa8aZ/69wO8wGnLaY6Zk=; b=Vqkc5wxRZrOIq+zMxSP0Rrjvz6awgCw+Kzlyc/1YehJRuZ9QeJ7RGvuqvDLaisNa4A T9Hp8v4+oCGaEil+NDTbzLZa/GwIcaj1Oqx7tnAj+7EU8E5zG5CYK27Z6KtBJXTJDlbQ VASH7agk8vL41zhBAhHSSqpbQTuMNm2OZpsJofBpvR+foumHyPepTl6vnqyUTCOgc5r0 /j/B33pdAtWjTReAQEGh4BroxTruJgZJk1htsjJKYz4u0HH5heo5x1PuaJ/oBpbaiXES cfCC2EP8zofmQta1OPkli0OP/uG0vUjZSzLgn4QZE/RJSsblpVJGgWhzzaN/6xW9l3DA MUmg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOR5HwhciBEkomz9cDGK4RUFWDEweo7YfI8qDX1euaByY4HdoHV1nS+M9NJYhC23u47VM4qPSQ2L5ssBZA== X-Received: by 10.182.114.232 with SMTP id jj8mr30312355obb.19.1455033046809; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 07:50:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: royce.williams@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.169.198 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:50:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56BA01ED.7000504@ohlste.in> References: <56B9D609.6030407@marino.st> <56B9EDC7.1010403@ohlste.in> <56B9F2D6.1090107@marino.st> <56BA01ED.7000504@ohlste.in> From: Royce Williams Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:50:17 -0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sE71Z-ep7XRSmS-2KNbbrkxiNME Message-ID: Subject: Re: Removing documentation To: FreeBSD Ports ML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:50:47 -0000 IMO, this entire thread is masking a deeper symptom: FreeBSD ports/packages management is fragmented. Each unofficial tool treats some symptoms well, and others poorly. The fact that I have to use the phrase "ports/packages" is indicative of a deep schizophrenia. Don't get me wrong -- I love the flexibility of choosing a package or a port. And I'm all for having choices. But people should not be choosing ways to manage core software management functions. Ideally, users could choose among different UIs/wrappers around the core of a port/package management system. The things that each tool has to do -- the database of current installs, dependency management, etc. -- should not be reinvented by each tool. They should be shared infrastructure that is part of the OS (like Debian's dpkg/apt system). A unified framework: * would make it easy for small-scale admins to install basic packages with sane defaults * would resolve dependencies sanely * would allow software maintainers to capture the manual steps currently stored in /usr/ports/UPDATING, and apply them in an automated/guided fashion * would support building and distributing your own packages * would be part of the base OS and documented accordingly Until this fragmentation is resolved , we'll be having this discussion every few months, users will keep shooting themselves in the foot ... and keep being incented to go elsewhere. We need to capture users' reasons for preferring specific frameworks, and build a roadmap to how they could be unified. Royce