From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 16 17:36:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E72716A509; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:36:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jylefort@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mirapoint3.brutele.be (mirapoint3.brutele.be [212.68.199.148]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4914E43D53; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:36:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jylefort@FreeBSD.org) Received: from host-212-68-244-243.brutele.be (host-212-68-244-243.brutele.be [212.68.244.243]) by mirapoint3.brutele.be (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id ALD19093; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:36:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jsite.lefort.net (jsite.lefort.net [192.168.1.2]) by gateway.lefort.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811085528; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:36:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jsite.lefort.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jsite.lefort.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D2B9C0E6; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:36:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:36:46 +0200 From: Jean-Yves Lefort To: Roman Bogorodskiy Message-Id: <20060816193646.dbda70b7.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> References: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> X-Mailer: Sylpheed running on FreeBSD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__16_Aug_2006_19_36_46_+0200_JeNVERiJLup.6e9h" X-Junkmail: UCE(50) X-Junkmail-Status: score=50/50, host=mirapoint3.brutele.be X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=bulk(0), refid=0001.0A090203.44E356D3.0097-B-TMvgkA6aoTfhAtE74E0K5Q==, ip=212.68.244.243, so=2005-12-15 23:46:19, dmn=2005-05-20 17:56:59 Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again 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: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:36:51 -0000 --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 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--