Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:18 -0700 From: Ted Thomas <tthomas@cosmozilla.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: autoconf/automake guru wanted [gnuplot-4.0 with patches] Message-ID: <46EFE5E6.9000602@cosmozilla.net> References: 20040501144552.GA30512@dragon.roe.ch
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm sorry if this sounds like a complaint. I just spent 2 days
attempting to salvage a sane 6.2 development box which does not use
X-Windows, because I stumbled into the Xorg quagmire. Recognizing that
the ports system is itself a remarkable achievement, I would distill my
concern down to one thing: naming conventions.
Example 1: autoconf/automake
autoconf-2.59_3 = up-to-date with port
autoconf-2.61_2 = up-to-date with port
autoconf-wrapper-20070404 = up-to-date with port
automake-1.9.6_2 = up-to-date with port
automake-wrapper-20070404 = up-to-date with port
I spent quite a bit of time trying to 'fix' what appeared to me to be a
major problem, namely two identical but independent packages. I guess I
was wrong, it appears this is intended. It seems obvious to me that
something like this should not happen. I would note that 'apache22'
works just fine alongside 'apache', and it ought to be possible to
exclude multiple instances of identically named ports which are
different simply by using some variation of that approach.
Example 2: xorg
xorg-libraries-6.9.0 < needs updating (port has 7.3_1)
This is not as rigorous an issue, but given the massive scope of the
X-Windows project, if 'xorg' means (not) 'xfree86', that should be
applied as rigorously as possible. I suspect the dependencies on this
particular library are what hooked me into a massive and very confusing
upgrade which was completely unnecessary on my system. I tried removing
everything 'xorg', but I still couldn't get a stable and sane ports
installation. I did go to the trouble of writing a little perl script to
track down these dependencies, but now that I know I can't rely upon the
port name to be unique, that approach isn't reliable.
I'm no expert on ports, so maybe I'm raising issues which have already
been thoroughly debated. However, as one who has been using FreeBSD
since 1995, I can tell you this recent unpleasant experience is out of
character with the basic principles which I believe have made FreeBSD
(by far) the best operating system of it's kind. To rely upon
specialized instructions such as those which were in the UPDATE file
regards Xorg means that those of us who try to apply FreeBSD in a
business environment can no longer rely upon those who maintain the
basic system to make sure "it either works or it doesn't, and nothing in
between". That principle is, in my opinion, perhaps the greatest
strength of the system, and should be protected. The instructions
regarding the Xorg upgrade were riddled with language like 'you may want
to' or 'might need to', and what I would consider an inexplicable
reliance upon 'portupgrade-devel' to solve some 'mysterious' defects in
'portupgrade'. Why do we need both?
Best regards,
Ted
Portland, Oregon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46EFE5E6.9000602>