From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 6 04:01:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-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 7116D16A420; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 04:01:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A1643D45; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 04:01:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 092FD52D4; Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:01:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:01:34 -0600 To: Jean-Yves Lefort Message-ID: <20060306040134.GA5679@soaustin.net> References: <20060305222205.GB926@hades.panopticon> <20060306044446.3af3b840.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060306044446.3af3b840.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Dmitry Marakasov , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: opinions on porting software in alpha state? 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:01:36 -0000 On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:44:46AM +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 01:22:05 +0300 > Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > > > I've successfully ported some software products, but now I doubt > > if I should actually submit these ports, because these programs are > > in alpha state. They are usable, yes, but as it may be expected > > from alphas they are quite buggy, and some functions don't work. > > What's the difference with the other software we have in ports? There are two theories of what should be in ports: 1) only things that are known well-working and useful; 2) anything that someone might find useful somehow, somewhere. There is never going to be consensus on what the model is. (My conclusion is based on the last N times this topic was discussed). I think it is fair that if something is really rough, that the user ought to be warned somehow, so that an informed decision about whether to install it can be made. Users "expect" the ports to work -- that part I'm not inclined to argue about, I'll just assert it. So if it's something rough, either it should be in pkg-message, or if it is known not to work yet, set an IGNORE message and let the user override that if they choose. (From past conversations you will be able to deduce that I lean towards theory 1, but that I no longer believe it is possible to either reach a consensus or force a policy on this.) mcl