From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 24 23:40:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F35CC16A400 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:39:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christias@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com [64.233.162.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA6843D53 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:39:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from christias@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id o1so933980nzf for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:39:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MANci7fsd5kMITjxLBLO+ChZxOyvf9pR0rUtP2UaLUNnjVqs2lOMO/9yeIXMnCvskeCkEK5FagIBWHUoa7tGqQBPobeSCvV/A83FJOdhWSiqLuNTUAssU+mZhJGTsrOZcyz+RD0RAPdIaENva+404aHYfMBU7S/lXZ8AlH/0qxs= Received: by 10.64.193.10 with SMTP id q10mr2863136qbf; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.185.5 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:39:58 +0300 From: "Panagiotis Christias" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20060424222727.GA20219@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060424165021.GA1367@lena.kiev> <444D1BEF.5010704@computer.org> <20060424222727.GA20219@xor.obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Obsolete packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:40:00 -0000 On 4/25/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:41:51PM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: > > Lena@lena.kiev.ua wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >A new version of a port (www/firefox) was released on April 14. > > > > > ># portversion -v firefox > > >firefox-1.5.0.1,1 < needs updating (port has 1.5.0.2,1) > > > > > >But packages still (on April 24) are of previous version: > > > > > >$ ftp ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/ > > >ftp> dir packages-5-stable/All/firefox-1* > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11188636 Apr 01 16:29 > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > >ftp> dir packages-6-stable/All/firefox-1* > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11511879 Apr 02 10:21 > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > >ftp> dir packages-7-current/All/firefox-1* > > >-rw-r--r-- 1 110 0 11511428 Apr 03 04:40 > > >firefox-1.5.0.1_2,1.tbz > > > > > >Is something broken or is there insufficient computing power for > > >building new packages more often? > > > > It's my understanding that packages are built "when possible". They > > often lag that which is in ports. There are only so many cycles in a > > day (per cpu and per person). I would assume that there is some logica= l > > order in which the packages are built (most used first? Though not sure > > how that would be determined) > > I continuously rebuild packages using a method that only builds > "changed" packages (new, updated to new version or with a dependency > that was changed). This typically gives a turnaround time on i386 of > less than a day to several days for packages becoming available, but > as I said in another reply I'm not uploading them now because of the > looming release cycle. With no intention to criticize your way of thinking or your work, release cycles sometimes could take a bit more time than scheduled. You, the developers and maintainers, know that better than us, the users. In the mean time there is a whole community of (end?) users that could benefit from the prompt availability of latest ports in packages. I'm referring mostly to desktop or workstation users, since the most of us build our ports from the sources for our servers. Although, I'm eager to use the "portupgrade -P" option more often for our (less critical) ports. Is there a chance that you, along with the release engineering team, reconsider your policy? Regards, Panagiotis