From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Apr 21 17:27:51 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97961D492C5 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:27:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3065B856 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:27:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from ultrabook.yoonka.com (x527163b0.dyn.telefonica.de [82.113.99.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v3LHReaX014382 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:27:42 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) X-Authentication-Warning: msa1.earth.yoonka.com: Host x527163b0.dyn.telefonica.de [82.113.99.176] claimed to be ultrabook.yoonka.com Subject: Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed? To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <29e44642-e301-f07c-afe3-bad735d8ee5e@freebsd.org> <20170420053722.GD31559@lonesome.com> <20170420084452.GH74780@home.opsec.eu> <99a57878-ae39-d2a4-fe35-023dae8b320b@gjunka.com> <20170420171119.GJ74780@home.opsec.eu> <127a5f89-93ba-aee4-14d3-41e2f2d71892@gjunka.com> <20170420195712.GK74780@home.opsec.eu> <399feac5-71d7-25ab-80da-84bd6c2eeeda@gjunka.com> <20170421025111.GL74780@home.opsec.eu> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <55cb6af9-cede-3e98-0df7-11ee97fc132e@gjunka.com> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:27:34 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170421025111.GL74780@home.opsec.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:27:51 -0000 On 21/04/2017 02:51, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> If the whole repository builds doesn't it mean by default that any >> subset also builds? > If we defined a repo build only as valid if everything builds, > the whole repo is never valid, because approx. 10% of > the ports tree breaks at any given time. More, if you add options. That's an interesting observation, I didn't know that. Does it mean that the quarterly port tree is no better or worse than the main branch? And is any tree ever build with non-default options? If no, how do you know how many are failing in that case? >> My assumption was that only version >> upgrades are progressed from CURRENT to STABLE to RELEASE. > Leads to a stagnating tree downstream, if you find maintainers for it. > That's the model Debian is using, and it has other issues. Especially > the load for the maintainers is huge, and users are unhappy > that the packages are getting old. Debian has approx. 6 times > more committers than we have, when I last looked, and more maintainers. > > If we take from that that we have to grow our committer base, yes. > Can we reason that unless we have that base, we can't follow that > model ? Maybe. Well, they can't be as unhappy as, say, Centos, where packages are really old. Also, I bet not all users are unhappy when the ports are not updated quickly. Corporate users tend to prefer stable versions even if they are getting a bit old, enthusiasts tend to prefer newest versions. FreeBSD can't cater for both groups a the same time. Which group has been chosen, if it has been chosen? Are we defaulting to enthusiasts? Grzegorz