Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:06 +0100 From: Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net> To: Charlie Li <vishwin@freebsd.org> Cc: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Daniel Engberg <diizzy@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 25e6f68a6661 - main - textproc/libxml2: Update to 2.11.6 Message-ID: <6e4dca8719bcb044186a179e708a32a1@mail.infomaniak.com> In-Reply-To: <02ebab1b-a763-45e4-9380-0d82c83c22a4@freebsd.org> References: <202401121705.40CH5JhG014492@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <ZaIcEvYZ2Yq_jW9Z@FreeBSD.org> <CALH631=meexWeEvPY4dBsVviAEms9OfcmKTk-YHGfw4fHJCzSw@mail.gmail.com> <a228d839c5a29d9991b72f1e0664da04@mail.infomaniak.com> <02ebab1b-a763-45e4-9380-0d82c83c22a4@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 2024-01-13T14:36:58.000+01:00, Charlie Li <vishwin@freebsd.org> wrote: > Daniel Engberg wrote: >> On 2024-01-13T09:02:35.000+01:00, Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:14 AM Alexey Dokuchaev >> <danfe@freebsd.org >> >> <danfe@freebsd.org>> wrote: >> >> Wait, what? You've just removed the comment which tells to NOT >> >> use the >> >> dreaded CMake and made the switch without logging any rationale? >> >> CMake >> >> in such low-sitting in dependency tree port is a PITA for many >> >> people, >> >> please don't push it down our throats as you've been repeatedly >> >> asked by >> >> other fellow developers. >> >> ./danfe >> >> I admit that there is no rationale for the switch in the commit >> >> message. But at the same time, reducing build times for Ports >> >> consumers has much lower priority for us than actually updating >> >> software. >> >> Daniel made sure that the switch doesn't cause circular >> dependencies >> >> which was a problem before. Because of that I approved the >> change, >> >> just for the sake of the "updating" part. >> >> Daniel is not being paid for this work, so if he's more >> comfortable >> >> with CMake (which I wholeheartedly understand!) it is a >> sufficient >> >> rationale for the switch. I believe no one will be against if you >> >> prepare a patch that will switch back to autotools and do the >> same >> >> amount of testing (500+ ports) that Daniel did. > > I will be doing exactly this for the 2.12 update. Already have a > WIP. > >> Hi, >> >> I want to add a few things that weren't in the commit message but >> that's >> >> been discussed and mentioned in the bugs report(s) and elsewhere. >> >> Local patches are a pain, no one has upstreamed patches for years >> and >> >> there's seemingly little to no interest in doing so. For a single >> >> >> committer that might not be much of an issue but it adds a >> overall >> >> maintenance burden and that specific maintainer/committer will >> not be >> >> around forever. As a community we've reported issues upstream, >> issues >> >> have been fixed and upstreamed patches. This by far a better >> success >> >> story than previously. It isn't perfect but it is in better shape >> than >> >> before and people are willing to contribute. There are more >> improvments >> >> upstream which be in later releases too. > > Until upstream specifically declares and recommends CMake as ready > for > > Unix-like systems in at least their documentation, nothing else is > relevant. > > -- > > Charlie Li > > ...nope, still don't have an exit line. Hi, Unless you're planning to upstream patches you can already stop working on it. This has been mention multiple times which you've so far ignored. There's little point in bumping before 2.13 is out which should be relatively soon. Best regards, Daniel [-- Attachment #2 --] <div>On 2024-01-13T14:36:58.000+01:00, Charlie Li <vishwin@freebsd.org> wrote:<br></div><div class="ik_mail_quote answerContentMessage"><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><pre style="white-space: normal;"><div>Daniel Engberg wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><div> On 2024-01-13T09:02:35.000+01:00, Gleb Popov <<a href="mailto:arrowd@freebsd.org" class="defaultMailLink">arrowd@freebsd.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><div> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:14 AM Alexey Dokuchaev <<a href="mailto:danfe@freebsd.org" class="defaultMailLink">danfe@freebsd.org</a><br></div><div> <<a href="mailto:danfe@freebsd.org" class="defaultMailLink">danfe@freebsd.org</a>>> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><div> <br></div><div> <br></div><div> Wait, what? You've just removed the comment which tells to NOT<br></div><div> use the<br></div><div> dreaded CMake and made the switch without logging any rationale?<br></div><div> CMake<br></div><div> in such low-sitting in dependency tree port is a PITA for many<br></div><div> people,<br></div><div> please don't push it down our throats as you've been repeatedly<br></div><div> asked by<br></div><div> other fellow developers.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> ./danfe<br></div><div> <br></div><div> <br></div><div> I admit that there is no rationale for the switch in the commit<br></div><div> message. But at the same time, reducing build times for Ports<br></div><div> consumers has much lower priority for us than actually updating<br></div><div> software.<br></div><div> Daniel made sure that the switch doesn't cause circular dependencies<br></div><div> which was a problem before. Because of that I approved the change,<br></div><div> just for the sake of the "updating" part.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Daniel is not being paid for this work, so if he's more comfortable<br></div><div> with CMake (which I wholeheartedly understand!) it is a sufficient<br></div><div> rationale for the switch. I believe no one will be against if you<br></div><div> prepare a patch that will switch back to autotools and do the same<br></div><div> amount of testing (500+ ports) that Daniel did.<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div> I will be doing exactly this for the 2.12 update. Already have a WIP.<br></div><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><div> Hi,<br></div><div> <br></div><div> I want to add a few things that weren't in the commit message but that's <br></div><div> been discussed and mentioned in the bugs report(s) and elsewhere.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Local patches are a pain, no one has upstreamed patches for years and <br></div><div> there's seemingly little to no interest in doing so. For a single <br></div><div> committer that might not be much of an issue but it adds a overall <br></div><div> maintenance burden and that specific maintainer/committer will not be <br></div><div> around forever. As a community we've reported issues upstream, issues <br></div><div> have been fixed and upstreamed patches. This by far a better success <br></div><div> story than previously. It isn't perfect but it is in better shape than <br></div><div> before and people are willing to contribute. There are more improvments <br></div><div> upstream which be in later releases too.<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div> Until upstream specifically declares and recommends CMake as ready for <br></div><div>Unix-like systems in at least their documentation, nothing else is relevant.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Charlie Li<br></div><div>...nope, still don't have an exit line.<br></div></pre></blockquote></div><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Unless you're planning to upstream patches you can already stop working on it. This has been mention multiple times which you've so far ignored. There's little point in bumping before 2.13 is out which should be relatively soon.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,<br></div><div>Daniel<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6e4dca8719bcb044186a179e708a32a1>