Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:36:46 +0200 From: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> To: Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again Message-ID: <20060816193646.dbda70b7.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> 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
--Signature=_Wed__16_Aug_2006_19_36_46_+0200_JeNVERiJLup.6e9h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:33:35 +0400 Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org> wrote: > I. Problems >=20 > There are few things that I don't like in freebsd ports: >=20 > 1. Binary packages are almost useless >=20 > 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 Some packages are outdated, some of them was not 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. >=20 > 2. Port tree is unstable >=20 > 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. >=20 > II Solutions >=20 > 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,=20 > so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all=20 > 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 >=20 > If both conditions are meat, the commit may be backported to STABLE. > After some time, when the dust will settle up, STABLE will be really > 'stable' and most of the ports in STABLE would build OK. So package > building will be much faster, cause all ports will be in a rather good > shape and it won't happen that a dozen ports fail just because of > dependency problem. So we could have more or less working binary=20 > packages ready to use, and always more or less stable branch. Now, > when you cvsup ports, you cannot be sure everything works, moreover, > something really importand maybe be broken, like e.g. bsd.sites.mk > typos, etc. And it will cause extra pain cvsupting the tree again. > So for systems where you care about stability, you could use STABLE. >=20 > And about freezes, we can make them shorter with such an approach. > We could tag RELEASE_X_Y of STABLE, no HEAD, so it would not take > much time to fix all issues. And HEAD still will be open. >=20 > Note that I'm not proposing keeping RELEASE_X_Y as security branch like > it was proposed several times, though it's not incompatible with the > approach described above. I agree with your analysis and solution. --=20 Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@FreeBSD.org http://lefort.be.eu.org/ --Signature=_Wed__16_Aug_2006_19_36_46_+0200_JeNVERiJLup.6e9h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE41euyzD7UaO4AGoRAt+JAJ9K9TqViRw9Tx9gYpF4dyNgAJ3IugCdHwis Zw5BnjD/YjnZvSSxFpGMDo8= =Ms2k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__16_Aug_2006_19_36_46_+0200_JeNVERiJLup.6e9h--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060816193646.dbda70b7.jylefort>