From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 1 23:06:56 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 0096616A41B for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 23:06:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from cauchy.math.missouri.edu (cauchy.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C770C13C442 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 23:06:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from cauchy.math.missouri.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cauchy.math.missouri.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lB1N6sNF018448; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:06:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from localhost (redmail@localhost) by cauchy.math.missouri.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) with ESMTP id lB1N6sa2018445; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:06:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) X-Authentication-Warning: cauchy.math.missouri.edu: redmail owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:06:54 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith X-X-Sender: redmail@cauchy.math.missouri.edu To: "Aryeh M. Friedman" In-Reply-To: <4751E594.6010105@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071201170552.V16007@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <200712011149.11212.david@vizion2000.net> <20071201134519.S16007@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> <200712011450.58878.david@vizion2000.net> <4751E594.6010105@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 23:06:56 -0000 On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Southwell wrote: >> On Saturday 01 December 2007 11:54:40 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. >>> >>> 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. >> Just who does not get it!! This reminds me of the presidential >> "there is no such thing as global warming" response to climate >> change debate. Wait for twenty years until events force us to fix >> it and then we will do something. >>> 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. >> The issue is about responsibility. Clearly the price of status quo >> is at minimum inconvenience for many and at worst unacceptable >> interference for an undefined number. What is wrong with trying to >> fix it now? Those who advocate change are not trying to get a fix >> it to make life worse for anyone. There is nothing wrong with >> change!! >> > > I am willing to put my code where my mouth is if we can get a good > percentage of ports into a new system to test the two side by side > (say the entire xorg meta port)... note to the skeptics out there this > is not meant to replace ports just be a proof of concept for a > possible replacement. > Excellent idea!