From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 29 07:07:09 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 EF1C210656E7; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:07:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from varga.michal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B638FC14; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:07:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkat8 with SMTP id t8so5280929bka.13 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:07:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N3ro6nWr6lZV1G1V7q6Em1LORM7xiQcFiCaOOxbGy5Y=; b=GWX5S9ItmW6PabPKSEIM5DkodLmMlfTJibkuSJ9OjKet3UC3o4AqcMT09qztqLxLZZ EfEF+VYxUDmtYIptQnFPMWTbeg/5uRMdULZwnDinVeWi2fCcq7up68vrWRVwN+l5Zksp uL7armm/HrbziP52DpPQY8wGYPH1EBWSGPIz4= Received: by 10.204.132.212 with SMTP id c20mr1873100bkt.352.1314601626923; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.101.2] (hotel.grandberoun.cz [90.182.105.26]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6sm1101108bkw.63.2011.08.29.00.07.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:07:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Michal Varga To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <4E5B320E.8010503@FreeBSD.org> 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> <4E5B320E.8010503@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Stonehenge Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:07:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1314601622.82067.441.camel@xenon> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org 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 07:07:09 -0000 On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 23:30 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > Testing only for "Does it still build?" won't help much anymore if the > > new version silently broke one of the APIs and while Apache still runs > > with it fine > > Believe it or not, I understand that. :) The problem is that extensive > run-time testing is not within the realm of possibility without an army > of volunteers. Do you want to organize that effort? That would be the very opposite of the concept I just described. While extensive volunteer testing, if considered standalone, is surely not a bad idea (just that for some reason it never happens anywhere), it lies in a completely different scope than port maintainers *not* randomly upgrading dependencies just on their own without regard to other ports they will affect (and in many cases break, be it on build level, or run-time level). I just double checked if I possibly forgot to send the other half of my email, but nope, it's all right there. > > Now where I'm trying to get by this: > > > > Either we want to have ports as a "big repository of colorful stuff that > > even builds", or we want to have some actual products that people can > > use after they build them. And that needs an additional level of quality > > control that FreeBSD currently, and horribly, lacks (patches welcome, I > > know). > > That sounds like PC-BSD to me. (Seriously, give it a try) Now that's like saying I might want to try *Linux and OS X too (I occasionally use both, just not as my primary desktop, which is FreeBSD). Speaking about PC-BSD, I'm not exactly fan of KDE and also, I find the concept of PBI packages highly offending. Then again, I can't see how would PC-BSD help in this case as it's the exact opposite of what I described. The fact that PC-BSD just tracks ports and builds self-contained packages from them doesn't automagically make them better product, it's still the same ports, but now just horribly packaged too. m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account)