From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 3 21:21:45 2007 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 4903C16A475 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:21:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCCC13C468 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:21:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: (qmail 19468 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2007 21:21:44 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (chuckr@[66.92.151.30]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Dec 2007 21:21:44 -0000 Message-ID: <475472FE.1000302@chuckr.org> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:19:58 -0500 From: Chuck Robey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071107 SeaMonkey/1.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schmehl References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering 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, 03 Dec 2007 21:21:45 -0000 Paul Schmehl wrote: > Here's a hint that would help a *ton* of users. Don't try to install a > port until your ports tree is up to date. Completely up to date - as > is, run portsnap or cvs or cvsup *first*, *then* try to install your port. >> >> I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want >> more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to >> taint the survey any more then it needs to be. >> > This is the part I don't get. If you have suggestions, post them. Post > the code that implements your suggestions. *Then* people can evaluate > whether or not your suggestions add value to the ports system. > > Why the silly games? As I read them, this seems to be the primary > objection of all the people responding who have @freebsd.org in their > email address. They've heard it all before, but they know that actions > speak much louder than words. If you say "the implementation of foo is > flawed", and then you post code that, IYO, improves it, people with > experience and knowledge can review it and say, "Hey, nice idea" or > "sorry, your code would break ports and here's why". > > Without the code, all the surveys and gesticulations in this tread > accomplish little except to irritate people. > Why the silly games? I get the feeling that Aryeh is honestly not understanding that he's trying to change the basic way that things get done in FreeBSD. He doesn't see that. In industry, first a decision is made that a market exists for such and such, then a study is made as to what could be done realistically. We don't operate that way. What we're all afraid of, Aryeh, is that you're going to run off with your poll of what you believe is needed (when we haven't even agreed that anything is needed) and you'll code something up, under the completely wrong misapprehension that if you code something up that does what the poll results said, it would get added in, pal, that's totally, totally false, you can ask any committer whatever, you will never get any apriori agreement on the adding of code, no matter what, until we can see the code. This has been endlessly argued in the past, and folks have certainly left FreeBSD over it, but it will not change. If you can't see that, then we will remain at loggerheads. If you can see that, then quit asking folks to agree on stuff without showing us code. I don't care how much research you do on what is needed, you will never change that fact, all you're going to do is trigger knee-jerk reactions from folks who have been *very highly* sensitized by prior attempts to change that rule. It's not gonna happen, and you strongly seem to be trying an end-run around it. If you honestly aren't, then you need to do a better job of convincing folks of that fact. That's what it all boils down to, anyone disagree, at base?