Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:14:45 -0700 From: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BIND segway -> python -> first-class ports Message-ID: <0BD5B14A-1931-40FA-BB4C-487BED772E09@jnielsen.net> In-Reply-To: <529E8C53.6020208@freebsd.org> References: <mailman.313.1386119137.1390.freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> <529E8C53.6020208@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 3, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > I have said before that in my opinion we should have two classes of ports. > Mechanically they are handled the same but class 1 ports are "standard additions", > and if they don't work it's a "stop-ship" condition.. These would be MAJOR ports.. > like a minimal python, a minimal Perl (ok yuk but some people would insist), > BIND, Sendmail, bash, and other things that people EXPECT to be in a FreeBSD system. > If you break such a port it has the same weight as breaking something in base, > but it's not base.. Whether we like it or not, 'pkg' is now (as of 10.0) effectively a "first-class" port, since although it lives in ports it is relied on by the base system (pkg bootstrapper) to provide core functionality (package management). Since we have such a distinction it would be useful to make official so we could, for example, do more frequent build and regression tests of such ports. And if we're going to do that for one port we might as well do it for several... JN
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0BD5B14A-1931-40FA-BB4C-487BED772E09>