From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 1 20:05:31 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F8916A46E for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:05:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aryeh.friedman@gmail.com) Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com [209.85.134.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF14413C447 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:05:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aryeh.friedman@gmail.com) Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so55453mue for ; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:05:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jFn2Euw5imwTHE75ebv1czcnF9YuBL5+mM8XiPbjjRk=; b=ZMTk55qCDUdkQz5SjAmvGx4r1yNCT2eZ1aY3qiq1bb1bMzGHCGOMg2Ak2d1DTSGkYwtAelZoA1GVD6dhBKNji1ZUEi+JghcB9yUaKM24dVbLOR1SGaJX1xR4NLTQUnDqyJrufobEja7SGc9pLrnPfBlfZpn8oi2NDzoTQQCBgLU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qt6XyNsx+dZ3gviYpXipPVOFeEfRUT/glklUkXMyC5XS4+uIjjCa30Zz+HP9SMesXq11Qy+JqCqw1TRcQP9zegpYPhuVJGlWhFAtkL1JHAlUY696JGCQ8wi1nVEo3IZDwpqDUo0Z6jo8elLOskjdWUciKNSWOEvYLbBp54nwu/c= Received: by 10.64.3.9 with SMTP id 9mr2350485qbc.1196539523578; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:05:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.2? ( [67.85.89.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e15sm5802086qba.2007.12.01.12.05.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:05:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4751BE76.1020901@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:05:10 -0500 From: "Aryeh M. Friedman" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071129) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <200712010948.34363.david@vizion2000.net> <20071201182840.GA35127@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <200712011149.11212.david@vizion2000.net> <20071201134519.S16007@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <20071201134519.S16007@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: url= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Southwell , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze 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: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:05:31 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, David Southwell wrote: > >> On Saturday 01 December 2007 10:28:40 Erik Trulsson wrote: >>> Personally, as a user, I have never really been even slightly >>> inconvienced by any of the ports tree freezes. >> >> All I can say is bully for you! The question is how do we get rid >> of a p[roblem even if it is not a disadvantage for you >> personally. It is disappointing when one hears arguments not to >> change simply because one particular individual is not >> disadvantaged by a currently illogical and antiquated solution to >> a problem that will inevitably grow as the number of ports >> increase. >> >> We need to grasp the nettle while we may!! > > I think that you and Aryeh are not getting that it is not just > "bully for you." There is a major effort required to change the > way we do ports. Even if the current system has some imperfections, > you have to persuade the FreeBSD community that the benfits of > fixing things are greater than the costs. I never knew I was advocating a specific solution or any change at all.... my only goal is attempt to systematically look at the current issues and see if a new archicture would be worth the time and effort > > My personal assessment is that now is NOT the time to grap the > nettle. Over time the ports system will acquire more and more > problems, until perhaps in ten or twenty years time it will be > unusable. Then it will be time to fix it, when we have a clearer > picture of what all the problems really are. Or maybe by then > things will have happened that make this whole issue moot. I just > don't think it is worth the effort to fix this problem now, > especially when the benefits will only be to a few power users. Without some short of historical failure/incorrect results data it is impossible to know who is right and who is wrong. But the inability to install mega metaports in pieces is pretty good evidence of a problem for me. > > Look, its good that you feel the freedom to complain, and advocate > for change. But don't get upset when others say they like the > status quo. They need to have freedom to say their piece too. Without a serious look at the pros and cons of any possible change it is impossible to know who is right and who is wrong on this issue. So I think some kind of monitoring of system issues may shed light regardless of the implications of the light. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUb52358R5LPuPvsRAhhPAJ42bdbR+G/eCQduIwjkO98YMfjHlACg1N98 mFfHOdVc5NZc12tLzCUo/pg= =j3S5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----