Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:29:13 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net>, "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze Message-ID: <4751EE49.2050900@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <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> <20071201170552.V16007@cauchy.math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
>
> 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!
Just thought I'd note: I've just restarted my SoC work on
pkg_install and will be working into next year, so don't worry about
that loose end..
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4751EE49.2050900>