From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 10:33:50 2003 Return-Path: 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 7E58F16A4CE for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B786943FD7 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:33:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from lonesome.com (cs242746-11.austin.rr.com [24.27.46.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FBB14657; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:33:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3FB05FE0.2090005@lonesome.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:04:48 +0000 From: Mark Linimon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030713 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fernan Aguero References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110152000.622db381.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <1068471598.38101.77.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110163623.GC93583@procyon.firepipe.net> <3FB02895.5050108@ciam.ru> <20031111001932.GA95315@toxic.magnesium.net> <20031111144221.GA527@iib.unsam.edu.ar> In-Reply-To: <20031111144221.GA527@iib.unsam.edu.ar> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:33:50 -0000 > > >what is the potential impact of doing a >less-than-perfect port? Breaking hier(7)? > Due to the fact that all the ports stuff is based on Makefiles (arguably our Achilles' Heel), it's actually possible to break a large number of ports at once. You've no doubt seen these annoying "index build failed" messages -- that indicates that because someone made an error in a ports Makefile, it is no longer possible to build a spanning tree of ports dependencies, and (IIIRC) portupgrade and other code relies on that spanning tree to be correct. So, it isn't just simple "resistance to change" here, there's techical reasons, too. As for the tempting next idea, "let's get rid of the Makefile- based technology", well ... the QA that would be needed to test the nearly 10,000 ports would be daunting, to say the least. Not to mention the conversion effort. There are a couple of ideas floating around on the net to do applications via some kind of metadescription, but those solutions are months if not years from being reality. In the meantime, it really comes down to just getting more volunteers involved within the existing framework, IMHO. mcl