From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 12 02:47:54 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D7CC7396E for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 02:47:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jankyj@unfs.us) Received: from stig.purplehat.org (stig.purplehat.org [50.243.134.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 468EB1A51 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 02:47:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jankyj@unfs.us) Received: from localhost (bill.goatse.unfs.us [50.243.134.106]) by stig.purplehat.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEE45AD17; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:42:14 -0700 (MST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=unfs.us; s=mail; t=1481510534; bh=AXNH1+Q6oZg+p29/p47UzHXMgnwxV2oBmibruCWVeKU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DzeQmwOK+/aUcKn9WMP+RAQJqPxSHJTAYdGmkXWnZea+z+LAM1Vqgu//BiDozDPJ7 xD+ZIdZxAPXTQ3zr0/9e+A41JLzZtm1F8AZf634V0rB3DIa0eBmLNJ7n5WLUVHINkl w699+OqYK1+Q5DrRI35kTFCjYgrfJ8YS7fvwh69Q= Received: from stig.purplehat.org ([50.243.134.106]) by localhost (stig.purplehat.org [50.243.134.106]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31407-10; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:42:12 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.1.10.30] (unknown [10.1.10.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jankyj@unfs.us) by stig.purplehat.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88E555AD07; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:42:12 -0700 (MST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=unfs.us; s=mail; t=1481510532; bh=AXNH1+Q6oZg+p29/p47UzHXMgnwxV2oBmibruCWVeKU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=gAxzrejhYwLTTkIEfLr+qlxiStP69qM9HDWf5UY0WIlPAcVm8yBAl9mW1GtucgYxj r4kWaknsLQ8E0g72TdKph4EEfburCrGzCcS28XTBFbDjX4xCuigVYcw7s0lq1oAKHB Bvu+wsjqTqmjvQWp+EZup3ujWn+beY8Us3DqKyOM= Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> From: "Janky Jay, III" Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:42:07 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="87XE3WsFwuv12dbmRqbpj7Ps44K2Pg2RA" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 02:47:54 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --87XE3WsFwuv12dbmRqbpj7Ps44K2Pg2RA Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="AbA2mMGWPW5lfnbf1ll1wNmIMJMabJT5e"; protected-headers="v1" From: "Janky Jay, III" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues References: <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: --AbA2mMGWPW5lfnbf1ll1wNmIMJMabJT5e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello scratch, On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65535@att.net wrote: > I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because > I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion.=20 > There's always some piece of code that's missing and can't be > found, or is the wrong version, et lengthy cetera. I've never > done release engineering, but I honestly can't imagine how some > of the stuff that makes its way into the ports tree ever got past > QA. It would get someone sacked if it happened in industry. >=20 > If the dev schedule would SLOW DOWN and the commitment switched > to quality from the current emphasis on frequency, with separate > trees for alpha-, beta-, and real release-quality, fully-vetted > code, the ports system might become usable again. This very, VERY rarely happens to me and I use ports *ONLY* in production environments. If you could please provide examples and report the issues to the port maintainer of the ports with issues, that would greatly help this situation. (Please don't take this as an insult or anything other than trying to be helpful...) Simply complaining about it without providing any additional information is certainly not going to improve anything. Being a port maintainer myself, I depend on people reporting any issues they run into in order to provide the most robust and dependable port I can. If people never reported any issues and I had no idea there was an issue with my port, how would I fix it? So, please, PLEASE report any issues with ports that aren't building. It's not too time consuming on your part. Just a simple BUG report and how to re-produce and you're finished. Kind Regards, Janky Jay, III --AbA2mMGWPW5lfnbf1ll1wNmIMJMabJT5e-- --87XE3WsFwuv12dbmRqbpj7Ps44K2Pg2RA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAlhODoMACgkQGK3MsUbJZn4kHQCfcPZ3Zr02aX/xx7s9dDpbS0wh wOgAn07RCcGQ2IZj8NVFzHZvLzC9NODk =+0hA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --87XE3WsFwuv12dbmRqbpj7Ps44K2Pg2RA--