Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:01:10 -0700 From: Micheas Herman <m@micheas.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports system quality Message-ID: <CAJw6ijkbgxWSpz92YQpn10bR0ueUL-EAtbDhRSrgfELwR7ykrA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1314596096.82067.419.camel@xenon> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <20058.20743.791783.342355@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <BLU0-SMTP182102B9C96837517ECB6BB93150@phx.gbl> <20110828172651.GB277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828173059.GT17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828181356.GD277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828183300.GX17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828184542.GE277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828152234.54cc9fac@seibercom.net> <20110828193046.GA668@magic.hamla.org> <1314564889.82067.89.camel@xenon> <4E5AB672.4020607@FreeBSD.org> <1314585798.82067.338.camel@xenon> <4E5B0EFB.6000900@FreeBSD.org> <1314596096.82067.419.camel@xenon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Michal Varga <varga.michal@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 21:00 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I think it would be a mistake to believe that we don't have any quality
>> control at all. I do think it's reasonable to ask whether what we have
>> is adequate, and if not, how can it be improved. That's why I'm
>> suggesting the stable ports tree idea as a step in that direction.
I don't know that a stable ports tree is mathematically possible.
I would suspect that if one was to consider all of the build options
for some of
the larger items, (even semi small ones like php) Most possible binaries have
never been built much less tested.
php as mod_php and fast-cgi and cli and cgi with and without su exec with
support for imagemagick and gd and all the possible version of those and
which of them have conflicts with the yaz extension (that only brick and
mortar libraries use)? And this is very frequently used port.
Might a more bazar type approach where the ports tree gave an option to
report the build environment and a fail/success that is keyed to the cvs
version of the ports?
This is just a brainstorm, but considering the pain that debian QA causes
debian developers, and the orders of magnitude larger task that QAing
the FreeBSD ports tree would be makes me wonder if self reporting wouldn't
be a direction to go in.
Further down this path, a website could display for any given time the
status of the ports tree:
failed to build with defaults. -- red
built with defaults and crashed upon loading -- yellow
built and passed a simple did it run with out crashing test -- light green
built and > (arbitrarily chosen number by the ports team) people reported that
it works.
There seems to be a lot of emotion around this so maybe there is some extra
energy that could make something like this happen?
Also, anecdotal the ports tree is always/rarely broken, doesn't really
help figure
out how to make the ports tree better, and know if the change made
things better
or worse.
Just my to pennies american..
Micheas
<snip>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJw6ijkbgxWSpz92YQpn10bR0ueUL-EAtbDhRSrgfELwR7ykrA>