From nobody Fri Oct 10 13:55:55 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-pkg@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4cjpDg2HNkz6C4RN for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:56:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olce@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R13" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cjpDg1kVTz3L5P; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:56:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olce@freebsd.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1760104563; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IsFcGhd5XaRciTY8W8HetJRTpMLoHBEZCl9o74row0Q=; b=h2ZEA/vOSSy9W8s1YUZ6WV4IFSg/q3b/aQAQu5WITMuFnzXSd7Rl7KqRSCQ76Gs9kqYBlA +V7qEPalWhUtCV6vh62XztTjCtWoOsOS5GnsKhv7u5/veShTBY9V/p2AZFIhRQ0fmNjzBs ysJyGatfZasrtkGX/pnWTjnbNFiHsUeBw+JacypIzXiv1i7oYTpYQMfDLs+EpblD2JZKcM ir6frHhwrXSkL/HjqZOe8lkDACNCRoZLQVwfgGlidXhbk2REyYMqO+RReFdP3HZpyeGGB1 gzwS6utLs0ik192UjaolGTbjDoPKFd3Vg1Fg34oJSaN0MeHmmGJvLt7RqFGNgg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1760104563; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IsFcGhd5XaRciTY8W8HetJRTpMLoHBEZCl9o74row0Q=; b=dAN1UfZps+byxlazLs+0O7lZDDJBJCc+OpCNcdYfeSfG18PHcz+HLDAvXqT2KKJR4LgRqI 7Ml8rGW/IjIhgZbC/yKtueSAltq+CY5w38kGjP/Xr7bVu0ISxSWriJX4ou2euhCvUCJJeZ r/i9TbFW2JfMyAaIxokbCcGrrlkCa75mgJmazW8n2FGQxlVkQvyM90hI62XB1owhWAeTR8 sMvTx/QcFT9v8Kc8BlebKtrnv/vQk+oI311TFaMDjj0nZw+a0xQaYn3eL25aWF8Ff9WxFq mMzed0VWilDqmHIj8J/HaoWJ4ksVZduitPV/6ES7yOI8YvLgx/xtGM3BJLbjEQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1760104563; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=NhZRBpTjxLrykf7fhLjSwONNTWomG6e2Qs01m7p4n7QY14IbTbzK0sTnRlwQ517hLSLcj8 K1XWZ/uduQ/xxcduNfyz2CGwWgqitQtmijploWu0wlzlDv1Bekp78YngQxuk1BUO6wqXRV Kgd6AUGKczqLeJHuGVC6GD3ErI28VSUpFGOyUYb6J5J3fM+tLtzevBuRzU78uGohmYddL0 P05SYMJWFN4AtcwemHwGkcHeGocMY4Xr4R8ItZp5YrYyIV/IErdaZZmFMzBMnltDYwZrpd s9Rs7g/8SkRIQkC+kzRft5M2/5IeXZ+SrJuEA0Ja3wNwzwFXojJZRE3tEcbBLg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from ravel.localnet (aclermont-ferrand-653-1-222-123.w90-14.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.14.66.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: olce/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4cjpDf5qf4z116R; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:56:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olce@freebsd.org) From: Olivier Certner To: Mark Millard Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FYI: 15stable-amd64-quarterly has had 2 successful builds, despite not being distributed yet Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:55:55 +0200 Message-ID: <2468720.gG0HsuGxDd@ravel> In-Reply-To: References: <6109335.Zv9zXsTiuT@ravel> List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-pkg List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2105173.n1Ql7ez4OO"; micalg="pgp-sha384"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --nextPart2105173.n1Ql7ez4OO Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; protected-headers="v1" From: Olivier Certner To: Mark Millard Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:55:55 +0200 Message-ID: <2468720.gG0HsuGxDd@ravel> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 > I like "Total" for the above. Great. > Are you suggesting to change the content of the that list > and the whole page to make no reference to the "scope > of the build" information (no count, no list for such)? We should probably keep it, as it has (like all the other lists on the page) a search box that can be used to determine quickly if a package was supposed to be addressed. Adding a status column to that list would be useful. It would say either: - "Up-to-date" in case of an incremental build and the package already exists. - Any of the already existing statuses ("Built", "Failed", "Skipped", "Ignored", "Fetched", "Remaining"). With this, users can jump to the relevant status-specific table and consult the additional columns there (such as Log) for a specific port. This makes it easier to find the fate of a specific package by not having to search in all tables. We can then imagine refinements (a link automatically filling the search box of the right table and jumping to it), but already just having the status info seems valuable. > Are you suggesting that the list should only list the > port-packages that are in the "Total" and, so, that > the "entries" figure would have the same value as > "Total"? No. And, if we add the status column as evoked above, I don't think there is a need to even add this list of non-up-to-date packages as a separate section. > (Calling the items ports when a port can define multiple packages > and pacakges are what is built is odd these > days --and has been for a long time.) If you view a port as an origin + a flavor, there's still a 1:1 correspondence, but that doesn't seem to be the common acceptation for a "port" and could be considered a stretch of the mind. That's why using "packages" seems preferable to using "ports". Not too sure if saying "port-packages" is better, as it might cause more confusion. > So if the "scope of the build" information is > kept, I expect that its terminology should be > changed to avoid ambiguity. > > I could imagine having lists and figures for > both: > > ) "Total's port-packages" > and: > ) "All port-packages" I really think these two terminologies are too close and thus confusing (why would the "Total" and "All" numbers differ? that's really unintuitive). "Build scope" seems much better (further improvements welcome). > Note: > If I understand right, such may well be changes to > how poudriere works for providing html pages. All these changes are cosmetic except the new status column in the "Build scope" (or whatever) list. That specific change is anyway a nice-to-have and could be done separately in a second step once the existing names are fixed, which really is the priority. Thanks and regards. -- Olivier Certner --nextPart2105173.n1Ql7ez4OO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCQAdFiEEmNCxHjkosai0LYIujKEwQJceJicFAmjpEGwACgkQjKEwQJce Jie86g/9F9XoP7KNkbdOT8n4wAJyBKDGZmfZnckX7EuS80aCrW8RKcpuOsG1BY8s vmuoEZWy0IHFNMvWhtiCU3DFLMAaTrQRzm+YBWp06J6LS2fV9hAVYS2rzRUyGNG4 OLmdT4EYocwvBZZOm3D72Gg9VOqUBZVt7HIItBYse/JATTgZJZrL2tk4eFNBfFp0 ++qNbuJCiSstQHS+c07PjQNs4qYQI+dmEXlKyiOsH/UYlOjAN1yo0K965WapFAZh Xcm8IdVfNwNkQX7HRw4GuEsW8+8H2o0ThJTVhmUr/tungjXN2ciQ2iKIj5ZK/3MF 1cA8PzX93pwt3OjZa5++hxdGk0alFtHoKozSOY8AlF+iaoU+8udxOQoze7+rtjme hjBDcLy4yRuNPwS37wV2CLMYJotaRUP7TN9HYkdxNsPdj2FDJXwDudSNjJivvjym d2ukQX9750EOm4XMBXtC77D+XEm+D+JF7wWuSRTAbT2OfXJ5hKJnsWFMS5GFe8Te SlTXYj0oLmDR2DUb39yg9XnZJ4Giln4j/cVk4DpmGBPXqiybt8bL/QRUHcSpydyk 9h2zG/a1ukaHrI/CnOunAUEUvraMghx37HV06o+tP0tbfFBKh2IUKk9dEdM3b6Hs CqOpylIu2ppczIVb82YcdFoUoG5UuB69IDo2vf0yzdwaYX6AoFI= =8Obp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2105173.n1Ql7ez4OO--