Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:06:12 -0500 From: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze Message-ID: <47519484.6000408@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071201105443.K15697@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <20071201132508.GA33039@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20071201135821.GK22121@graf.pompo.net> <200712010749.01173.david@vizion2000.net> <475180BF.6010302@gmail.com> <47518575.9040806@math.missouri.edu> <47518763.30509@gmail.com> <20071201102243.N15323@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> <47518E1C.6090703@gmail.com> <20071201105443.K15697@cauchy.math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> >> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>>>> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For some reason, people contributing to this mailing list >>>>> are getting frustrated because some of the applications are >>>>> now getting to be about a month old. But why should we >>>>> expect to have the latest and greatest in version number of >>>>> application? It is because this is what we usually have, >>>>> and so a periodic hiccup is out of the ordinary and so >>>>> frustrates us. >>>>> >>>>> But suppose you are running Red Hat Linux instead. Do you >>>>> also get the latest and greatest in this super timely >>>>> manner? (To be honest this is not a rhetorical question, >>>>> but my guess is "no.") >>>>> >>>>> In fact, who feels this frustration. Is it the ordinary >>>>> user? Or is it us port maintainers who wish they could get >>>>> their more recent PR's accepted? >>>>> >>>>> Surely this frustration is felt by us because we have >>>>> information that things could be a little more up to date. >>>>> But if we weren't in the know, then we wouldn't be so >>>>> upset. >>>> >>>> I am not suggesting we do a major overhaul before ports are >>>> unfrozen... what I am suggesting is there is always room for >>>> improvement and the frustrations voiced should be looked as >>>> an opportunity to improve it instead of us (the complainers) >>>> crying in our milk. >>> >>> I feel that your deflection of the points I made was a little >>> unfair. My question is - why exactly is there a frustration? >>> Is it because the FreeBSD community have somehow set >>> expectations to be "totally up to date" a little too high? Are >>> we simply expecting more from FreeBSD than we get from Linux >>> distributions or MS, simply because the average user has >>> tremendous knowledge and insight into the internal development >>> process? >>> >>> Remember, I'm just an average user, just like you. I have no >>> special axe to grind in defending FreeBSD. >>> >> >> Even though this is best answered in a more systematic way (an >> "official" review of the entire problem set) here are my reasons >> for being frustrated: >> >> 1. There as has been some work that I am aware on ports I use >> that has not bean released during the freeze for various reasons >> (such as miro and qemu patchs [enable the use of physical drives >> and run vista without crashing]). None of them are pressing >> enough for me to bypass the ports system because everytime you do >> so you complicate upgrading (have fun keeping track of what you >> installed from ports and what came from vendor tar's) >> >> 2. As a developer I have 3 ports I would like to release ;-) > > But this agrees with my original assertion - that the frustration > is from the port maintainers and originators, rather than the port > users. Actually item 1 is more important to me then item 2. > > > > What solution would you propose. The only one I can think of is > that we have a ports-stable and a ports-current. But I can see > many people not liking this idea. > An other solution (and one suggested by Huffman) is create a matrix of what stuff has been tested against and on a port by port basis I can set a tested vs. untested flag for what set of depenancies to use. This is not much different then your idea just more fined grained. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUZSE358R5LPuPvsRAoafAKDb28txAZYyFrFQuWTLFSX8csdnUgCg4vNZ ZvDE/TetpCzjfeA+y9Y4ghI= =CJ82 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47519484.6000408>