Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:      asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
To:        jim@reptiles.org
Cc:        itojun@itojun.org, jhs@freebsd.org, committers@freebsd.org, hylafax@freebsd.org, gj@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ports/comms/hylafax
Message-ID:  <199706060125.SAA29193@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <m0wZcOq-0003pcC@iguana.reptiles.org> (jim@reptiles.org)

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for your comments.

 * however, from a general user's perspective, it would be far greater for newish
 * versions of things to be added with a version number (ie. hylafax4, ncftp2,
 * perl5, etc) such that we, the normal users, have a choice of running the
 * old standby (even if it has bugs) or the newfangled port (even if it has bugs).

I'm sorry, but those are more of special cases and not the rule.
ncftp2 and perl5 are both newer versions of what is/has been in the
main source tree.  (There never would have been both ncftp1 and ncftp2
in the ports tree if ncftp1 wasn't in the main source tree before.)
Things like tiff/tcl/tk have multiple versions because they are used
by other ports and are/were necessary to ensure the integrity of the
ports tree.  Ghostscript[234] are there because the newer versions
have licenses too limited for free corporate use.

The others are stuff like gimp-devel, nn-current and vim5beta, which
have not replaced the old version because the new ones are still in
beta.  When the new version comes out of beta, we intend to merge them
into the old port.

In general, we do not maintain multiple versions of the same port
because it is too much work to do so.  Note that for every port that's
in the tree, even if it's an older version that nobody commits against
anymore, we have to check tarballs, build packages and field bug
reports.  Having multiple versions of the same port also causes a
whole lot of interesting problems (see the gs[234] binary mixup in
2.2-BETA packages for example) that we rather not have to worry about.

Now for hylafax.  It falls into none of the above special cases.  It
is an "oddball" port that requires me to take special action while
building packages (it uses bash as shell, and chokes on my cd/rm
exported functions so I need to stop and unset those), so having one
more hylafax port means a lot more work for me whenever I build the
packages (which happen about once a month -- it is now necessary with
-current moving so fast and many things breaking left and right).

Also, the new version (4.0 release, not beta) has come out in August
of 1996.  That is 10 months ago.  The upgrade has been long overdue, I
have asked several people who mentioned that they "got 4.0 working at
home" to make a port, until finally itojun (three cheers to him!) came
up with one.  Since this particular port was first mentioned in a
Japanese mailing list, we had some people test it there, and I
committed the port after about a few weeks of "ok" reports and no
"doesn't work" reports.

Besides, the author has deleted the ver 3 tarball from his own site.
I would trust his judgement more than anyone else's.

 * put plainly, i'm sure many of us appreciate the efforts put into maintaining
 * the ports collection, but let's not get into pissing contests over who has
 * control.  then we all suffer.

Amen.  The "correct" procedure to deal with this was probably for me
to strip the MAINTAINER=jhs line for neglecting to upgrade the port
for so long, and then commit the new port, but what difference does
that make?

I didn't want to publically embarrass/accuse Mr. Stacey by making it
an issue, and indeed thought I was doing him a favor by giving him a
chance to silently watch from the sidelines while people do the work
that he was expected to (and if you take a diff of the committed
pkg/PLIST with the submitted version, you can see that *I* also did a
lot of work to make it package correctly, one thing the old port never
did).  I guess that didn't work very well.

Satoshi



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706060125.SAA29193>