Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:52:01 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: overzealous cleaning of Attics in ports tree Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0101121134001.24868-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <yfkhf35no0b.fsf@vader.clickarray.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This is customary in the ports tree. As you may have seen in the
> past, the ports tree will undergo a periodic Attic cleansing.
I never noticed it before. I suppose I haven't been keeping a copy of the
repository long enough, or I didn't watch cvsup carefully enough. I don't
see it mentioned in the Porter's Handbook, nor the Committer's Guide.
> There will be way too many dead files lying about otherwise.
It costs me five cents to store the entire FreeBSD repo on a CD-R. Over
time, the cost of disks and tapes has (doubtless with some exceptions)
decreased. I have the impression that most people do not keep a full copy
of the repository, only the checked-out sources or a release CD-ROM.
Supposing that's true, only a few people store the dead files.
> (By the way, the reason why I am so adamant about having repo-copies
> done when a replacement port enters a tree is precisely because of
> this.)
Sometimes files can be sent to an Attic, yet no replacement is made.
Such files can still have value. For instance, the AUIS port was sent to
the Attic in October of 1999 because it would only compile in a.out
format. IMO the files could still be useful. For instance, someone might
want to compile it under FreeBSD 2.x and make the binaries available. I
know that porters aren't officially supposed to support 2.x (sometimes I
wish that applied to 3.x as well ;) ) but the minimal support of keeping
old files around--so someone can check out the ports tree as it was in the
past--is of value IMO. I know that with 4.x, "make release" requires some
ported software: docbook and jade come to mind. Suppose that one of
those ports was killed, or even just renamed. If the policy of purging
dead files from the ports tree remains in place, people would no longer be
able to build old releases of FreeBSD. Being able to do so has value.
There was a recent discussion on freebsd-current ("Fixing a.out
compatibility") in which the need emerged for someone with a 2.x box to
build ld.so on it. Anyway, as for AUIS again, someone might want to make a
port of just the fonts from it. Someone might want to make a port of AUIS
and notice that (after this purge) none exists. Having the dead files
would give such a person a head start, or at least alert him to the ELF
problems. If you look at the AUIS files in the tarball I made, I think
you'll agree that this was not a trivial port.
Another example is the gyve ports. They were killed because Ade Lovett
wanted to get rid of GTK+ 1.0. The GYVE ports had not been updated in a
long time, so they still used that old library. It looks to me as though
the reason they had not been updated is that no one had noticed the
project's new site, www.gyve.org. I've not looked at it closely, but I
have a hunch that the current GYVE will work with a more recent GTK+.
There's a probability that the dead files would be of use for someone who
wishes to make an updated port.
As the maintainer of aumix (http://jpj.net/~trevor/aumix.html), sometimes
I look at old versions. Compiling them on FreeBSD is easier with the
port. Some of them required patches, all of which have been purged. If I
allow the purged files to vanish from my own copy of the repository, it
will become slightly more difficult for me to support FreeBSD.
Another example from the tarball I made is the rzsz port. I would liken
it to a sign on a repository for radioactive waste. It should be kept
around for a long time, to warn people of the danger.
> That said, it seems like indeed Peter got a little overzealous. I
> thought we were supposed to only delete files that have been in the
> Attic for some time, not all Attics.
I think my examples show that the length of time since a file went to an
Attic is not necessarily a valid metric. I ask you to change the policy
and restore the files which have no replacement. Again, I am willing to
help.
> Doesn't this cause problems for people who checked out the tree
> recently (and since have a file moved to the Attic)?
I've seen a message or two from people who were surprised by all the
deletions. At least one seemed nervous about it. There should have been
a heads up.
--
Trevor Johnson
http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.4.30.0101121134001.24868-100000>