From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 17 06:12:04 2010 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 DB6EA106564A; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 06:12:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [212.204.60.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937CA8FC17; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 06:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (HSI-KBW-078-042-098-160.hsi3.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [78.42.98.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B038A26B5; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:12:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C9306B2.9010401@bsdforen.de> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:12:02 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100908 Thunderbird/3.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org> <4C92F195.5000605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C92F195.5000605@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoconf update 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: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 06:12:04 -0000 On 17/09/2010 06:41, Doug Barton wrote: > On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote: >>> Dominic Fandrey writes: >>> >>>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: >>>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze@bsdforen.de) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build >>>>>> dependency? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any >>>>>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding >>>>>> all the software improves it. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't >>>>>> understand and that worries me. >>> >>> My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch. >> >> We shouldn't use our users to beta-test infrastructure changes. > > Sorry, I'm not feeling well atm and realize that I didn't write what I > was thinking here. What I intended to say was that we _don't_ > intentionally use the ports system to force our users to beta test > changes. I think it goes without saying that we _shouldn't_ do this, > although I think that changes like this are a platinum-coated example of > why we need to have -stable and -dev branches for ports. I used to disagree with this, because I thought it would create additional work load. I have come to think more favourably of the idea, because you can make more daring commits on a -dev branch and don't have to quick-fix everything that goes wrong. Also the time between a MFC does not have to be very long. A week should be more than enough time to uncover and solve all problems. So the delay to get updates and fixes on the -stable branch is not very long. Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?