From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 29 08:46:40 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7C2106567C for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:46:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699998FC0C for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:46:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from c83-255-48-78.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.48.78]:58141 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Kv6hL-0002eT-4d for freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:46:39 +0100 Received: (qmail 42387 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2008 09:46:37 +0100 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2008 09:46:37 +0100 Received: (qmail 68855 invoked by uid 1001); 29 Oct 2008 09:46:37 +0100 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:46:37 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: FBSD1 Message-ID: <20081029084637.GA68812@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.48.78 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Kv6hL-0002eT-4d. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1Kv6hL-0002eT-4d 43c709805b73e33da2e47afaa85b484a Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:46:41 -0000 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote: > It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for > real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the > source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. > Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to the > package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their > changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management > on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing > packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its > being mis-managed. It is not port managers who create or upload packages. Most of them do not even have access to the package server. The downloadable packages are built and uploaded automatically by a cluster of servers that do little else. If a particular port does not have a corresponding package it is generally not due to laxness on anybodys part. The main reasons why a port might not have corresponding package are: 1) The port has just been created and the package hasn't had time to built yet. Normally a very temporary situation. 2) Legal restrictions. There are several ports where it is simply not legal for the FreeBSD project to distribute the corresponding binary packages. 3) The port is currently broken and cannot be built. (This is of course a bug which should be fixed as soon as possible. For ports without a maintainer that might take a while.) 4) One or more of the dependencies of the package is not available as a package. (If port A depends on port B, and there does not exist a package for B (for any of the reasons listed here) there will not be a package of A either. > > An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing > packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so port/pkg > management staff can review first and them populate the production package > server. All the packages that can be built and distributed are already being built and uploaded. Allowing users to upload packages would not help. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se