From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 29 13:29:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0614F16A4CE; Sat, 29 May 2004 13:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out003.verizon.net (out003pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.103]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A43C43D4C; Sat, 29 May 2004 13:29:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([68.161.84.3]) by out003.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040529202918.URDG6671.out003.verizon.net@[192.168.1.3]>; Sat, 29 May 2004 15:29:18 -0500 Message-ID: <40B8F29C.5020804@mac.com> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 16:29:16 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Eikemeier References: <200405282158.i4SLwhJj078013@8ball.rtp.freebsd.org> <1085826250.41463.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> <40B867E8.8020808@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <40B867E8.8020808@fillmore-labs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out003.verizon.net from [68.161.84.3] at Sat, 29 May 2004 15:29:17 -0500 cc: FreeBSD ports cc: pav@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Ports with a wrong PKGORIGIN X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 20:29:39 -0000 Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > Pav Lucistnik wrote: >> Suggestion to eik: what about mailing ports-developers@ instead of >> ports@? I read ports-developers immediately, but ports@ only once in >> a while. > > I'm happy with that, since only ports committers can do something to > fix this anyway. OTOH, the same rationale that are valid for a > broken INDEX apply to PKGORIGIN and PKGVERSION: Port users might want > to know that the will run into trouble when they are trying to > update the port, and CCing ports-developers seems overambitious. While I am concerned that the ports infrastructure be in a consistent state, I cannot say that seeing broken INDEX or these "wrong PKGORIGIN" messages is especially useful. The main value of the ports system to me is that generally two people (a port's maintainer and a ports committer) have worked on a particular piece of software to try to make sure the software runs well on FreeBSD and follows the conventions (following the hier manpage, being installable and deinstallable via the pkg_* tools, respecting compiler flags, etc). If there is a problem with an update to a port, most of the time, I am perfectly willing to wait for those people to sort things out. In a few cases, perhaps I might make my own local changes to coerce things to proceed, but for the most part, I think these alerts could be sent to a smaller, more targeted audience that either has a commit bit to fix the issue and/or is a maintainer of the software. Also, if the ports infrastructure has scripts which can verify whether the "referential integrity constraints" are broken by a commit (to snarf a database term), it might be more useful to use such scripts as part of the CVS pre-commit checks. Of course, sometimes that kind of checking can make it a real pain to make a large change in steps where the intermediate phases are inconsistent. However, the use of some override mechanism-- perhaps checking whether the change is done by a portmgr, or has an "Approved by: portmgr" in the CVS commit message, would be a good solution. -- -Chuck