Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 11:16:26 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@tu-dortmund.de> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=c3=b6rlein?= <uqs@freebsd.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Antoine Brodin <antoine@freebsd.org>, Rene Ladan <rene@freebsd.org>, ports-committers <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r534093 - in head: . audio audio/festvox-czech audio/gkrellmvolume2 audio/mixmos audio/mma audio/pd-cyclone audio/shorten audio/taglib-sharp audio/xhippo biology biology/consed biology/... Message-ID: <fc504e00-38bb-0317-9be5-bf86493ad30f@tu-dortmund.de> In-Reply-To: <20200509060901.GA4597@FreeBSD.org> References: <202005051538.045FcC5t083716@repo.freebsd.org> <CAJ9axoQKjKg8Hp9xYusGziwy3XTz%2BQa2Dt43-9wuFAE1XgZtww@mail.gmail.com> <CAALwa8nwfb9c0TpZS40jxECM2Mn7pMfmipgfZAuZ32Dy26QAcg@mail.gmail.com> <20200506083234.GA64535@FreeBSD.org> <CAALwa8ks-p7eROa8N7NKoeSbMuwosQWpYkko7j7RtLBAtpBGGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ9axoSoJVwxCstQ%2BDQZKWyNn4Ecmm5o9jythrKgCsGKJYe2uA@mail.gmail.com> <20200507074443.whhdbabiimrjsand@ivaldir.net> <20200508133245.GD3075@acme.spoerlein.net> <20200509060901.GA4597@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 09.05.20 um 08:09 schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev: > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:32:45PM +0200, Ulrich Sp??rlein wrote: >> ... >> I'm certain we cannot agree on this point, but let me retort anyway: >> this situation is not the worst, it's the _best_ possible situation! >> >> It conveys to an interested (!) user that sysutils/hidesvn had a >> working port to FreeBSD that was working at some time. It conveys the >> place/category in the ports tree it was in, and it gives them an >> opportunity to fix the port (it's just a size mismatch after all). >> >> It makes no difference to the user running `pkg add`, yes. And I would >> say that keeping the broken port around and run shlib bumps against it >> isn't that much of a burden to the project. > > This very well describes my viewpoint as well. Unfortunately Ulrich, > we're the minority. Uli, Alexey, it would seem however that this is more a documentation issue rather than an application issue. In my perception, we have our documentation spread out across various places, website, porter's handbook, freshports.org, some wiki pages, but I am not aware of a central one-stop roadmap where all users can gather, sort of a big map at the entrance of a natural/scenery park or a zoo that tells you flamingos to the left, bears to the right, butterfly house straight on. Something like that. Only that we should have "how do I figure if FreeBSD has software X", "b) if FreeBSD used to have", "c) how to I package Y for FreeBSD" and thereabouts. You need to browse several different places to find out. And notification of port issues is also something we should get in place, at scale. BUT: Why is it that broken ports get interest only when they are removed, not in the months before? That would seem to be more of a point to look at than the five minutes more we need to fix up MOVED to revive the occasional port. Meaning: we need a concept for documentation, and plug the holes in notification...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fc504e00-38bb-0317-9be5-bf86493ad30f>