From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 8 00:15:26 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA3E1065674; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 00:15:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6D48FC12; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 00:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.36]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2011 20:15:24 -0400 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.2.3-GA) with ESMTP id BHB67984; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 20:15:21 -0400 Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=209.6.61.133; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-sender="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.6.61.133; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-sender="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=209.6.61.133; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-sender="postmaster@utka.zajac"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-Auth-ID: anat Received: from 209-6-61-133.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO utka.zajac) ([209.6.61.133]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2011 20:15:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4E680908.3060708@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:15:04 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110714 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <201109050933.p859XEbP004874@fire.js.berklix.net> <4E64C35A.50004@FreeBSD.org> <4e65b42e.M5K+to11vAdk/UTk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E6581E2.1060502@FreeBSD.org> <4e671817.ddHMkPbq9dJ7tLMz%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E66EFC5.3020201@FreeBSD.org> <4e67a3b2.CVKcpQ8KQzuo8BP+%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E67F41F.70401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E67F41F.70401@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: ports@freebsd.org, jhs@berklix.com, perryh@pluto.rain.com, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs) 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: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:15:26 -0000 On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote: > Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature. However, > it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you consider the > number of those ports that are either actually or effectively unmaintained. Support? What support? Can I call someone and have a solution to a problem? Some PRs remain open for years and any attempts to escalate are met with "patches welcome" -- I've been on both sides myself :-) We do not offer support, make no promises of such and offer neither guarantees nor SLAs. What we do offer is: "THERE IS A PORT OF IT". If there is a piece of software out there, chances are, it is ported to FreeBSD. Even if the existing port is imperfect, it is a starting point for somebody, who needs that software on their system. With every port removed, that promise wears thinner and thinner... > Maintaining a high level of actual support for the ports tree is the goal here. Without paid contracts talk of "high level actual support" is meaningless. Both src and ports are maintained by people, to whom software-development and engineering is FUN. Support is not fun -- it is a burden. A burden we undertake (you, perhaps, more than others), but do not like... > In the near term future we're also hoping to provide some new, better tools; > as well as better/more consistent package support. In order to do those things > we need to make sure that we're putting our effort where it is most needed. This is great, but: 1. I don't see, how the sliver of removed ports, actually, helps you there. 2. In the past "consistent package support" used to conflict with the loose building from source (recall the ongoing problem with major shlib numbers bogusly included in most LIB_DEPENDS lines). Having to deal with RedHat's yum at work, I got to say, I'd rather be building from source, than installing from "consistent packages", that somebody else built *to their* tastes. Also, having to provide "high level support" for those packages limits their number. No, I don't want FreeBSD to go in that direction at all. Let RedHat cater to that market :-) To rephrase: your opinion seems to be: let's provide better support to fewer ports. I say, that's misguided -- you will not be able to significantly improve the support quality, even if you do remove the niche ports from the tree. But the removal will in itself be harmful... Yours, -mi