From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 1 20:42:48 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 0B92A16A468 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:42:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michel@lpthe.jussieu.fr) Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9509213C4CE for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:42:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michel@lpthe.jussieu.fr) Received: from parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr [134.157.10.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.13.8/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id lB1Kgk0W097288 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:42:46 +0100 (CET) X-Ids: 165 Received: from niobe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (niobe.lpthe.jussieu.fr [134.157.10.41]) by parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB972371F9 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:42:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by niobe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (Postfix, from userid 2005) id 6BB5880; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:42:45 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:42:45 +0100 From: Michel Talon To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20071201204245.GA57218@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.165]); Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:42:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/4970/Sat Dec 1 16:44:03 2007 on shiva.jussieu.fr X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 4751C746.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! 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 20:42:48 -0000 Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > My main issue is the lack of good depenancy tracking Dependency tracking is a manual operation of the port maintainer. There is no way to automatize it, because there is a lot more in dependencies than shared libraries (which could be tracked automatically). As such it is as good or bad as the port maintainer, and there is no way to change that. You will always encounter ports with huge and irrelevant dependencies, instead of the ideal smallest subset allowing the port to run. > (leaving it to the preview of each port I think is asking for it in > the long run) and some rather inconsistent behaviour between say the > following three options: > > cd /usr/ports/{some metaport} > make install > In my non orthodox opinion, this should be reserved to port developers and similar power users who require maximum flexibility. For casual users flexibility is not required at all and is more a hindrance than a bonus. > portinstall {some metaport} Portupgrade has never worked correctly and will never, for a lot of objective reasons supplementing the implementation choices. > > and > > pkg_add {some metaport} In my opinion, things will be better when people will finally be convinced that binary packages are the way to go, and then use a *good* package management system such as apt-get. A functional upgrade system can be built for packages, but cannot for ports, for obvious reasons. The OpenBSD people have understood that, but now it appears that most FreeBSD people are happy with the source based system, and all the problems going with such a choice. -- Michel TALON