From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 29 06:01:31 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CBC106564A for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:01:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m@micheas.net) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA9D8FC0A for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:01:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwi36 with SMTP id 36so5341253wwi.31 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.39.133 with SMTP id d5mr2581550web.23.1314597690101; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:01:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: m@micheas.net Received: by 10.216.168.68 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:01:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1314596096.82067.419.camel@xenon> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <20058.20743.791783.342355@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <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> From: Micheas Herman Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:01:10 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Mx6ovA1MOpi8jjcDkbHC0hKhj9Q Message-ID: To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: Ports system quality X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:01:31 -0000 On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Michal Varga 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