Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:46:48 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again Message-ID: <44E34BF8.2020104@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> References: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > I. Problems > > There are few things that I don't like in freebsd ports: > > 1. Binary packages are almost useless > > The chance to install all that you need using 'pkg_add -r' and some given > time are very low. Some packages are outdated, some of them was not > build because something of its dependencies failed, etc. That's very > annoying... so you have to build almost everything yourself. It's just a > waste of time, esp. if you have not very fast box. And it's not always > possible to set up a local box for building packages, etc. And why is it that you always need to run the very latest version? Just pick the last package that was available. It's normally new enough. > 2. Port tree is unstable > > IMO, port tree is not very stable. I mean: we're all human and more or > less often make mistakes and inaccurate commits. So you cannot be sure > that if you cvsup/portsnap your tree, it will not break something > (e.g. because of some typo). It's OK to have such errors in general, and > we can do nothing with it, but there are a lot of silly errors which > could be avoided and you definitely don't deal with on a stable system. There's always something that can go wrong, especially if you deal with messy ports that require a compatibility layer. But native builds cause problems very rarely. > II Solutions > > Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I > propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it, > so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all > patches to HEAD first. Then they wait for two things: > - For next run on pointyhat to find out if package builds well > (for a start, we could wait only for 6.x/i386 builds) > - User feedback. Like, if there's no complains like "ahh, it > broke everyhting, ahaha, please backout!", so everything's ok What about security critical changes? Would you push them through that process as well? Read the portupgrade man page and look for the '-b' flag. If you want a branched system, why not use PKGSRC? > ... > > Comments are welcome! It is normally not necessary to have the very latest version of everything. With your approach you wouldn't really receive binaries earlier. Only people who are willing to build ports themselves receive the ports later.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44E34BF8.2020104>