From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 11 08:40:05 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2736C3C5 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 08:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D77EC2F45 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 08:40:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WjPIU-000Nrw-B2; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:39:50 +0200 Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:39:50 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: "Montgomery-Smith, Stephen" Subject: Re: ACTION REQUIRED - Unstaged Ports being DEPRECATED on June 31st. Message-ID: <20140511083950.GG2341@home.opsec.eu> References: <536E46E0.7030906@FreeBSD.org> <536EDA23.6090401@missouri.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <536EDA23.6090401@missouri.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Jonathan Chen X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 08:40:05 -0000 Hi! > >> So we will be DEPRECATING and resetting maintainer on all unstaged ports > >> on June 31st. [...] > Of course I might be wrong. But if I am right, then it will become > increasingly difficult to allow unstaged ports. There is a real need and benefit for a wider approach to ports. First, not every system can build all the ports it needs, due to resource (cpu, disk space, wall-clock time and admin time). So, between the ports infrastructure and the production systems, there is a real need for binary packages. Compare the debian package update processs and compare it to the freebsd package update process. If FreeBSD wants to stay afloat, it needs to improve in that area. Second, updating a host should be much easier. I support approx. 100 systems and we have a binary deployment process for packages which basically is (for old-style ports): - copy a consistent pkg tree from the reference build host to the production host - pkg_delete -a - pkg_add *.txz In the old world (not pkgng) this took considerable time (cpu, wall-clock, admin) and was not very convenient. So, pkgng provides a way to deploy and update which is much easier. Third, for pkgng to properly provide this convenience, the ports build process had to be revamped. And the staging of a port, while initially looking like a huge timesink while doing a port, yields much, much cleaner packages, which are much easier to test, build and deploy. Cleaner packages help in detecting inconsistencies, library issues, left-overs, automatic quality-assurance during porting, etc. So, staging is essential and keeping non-staged ports supported looks unfeasable from my experience. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 6 years to go !