From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 18 15:22:58 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A5516A568 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:22:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tthomas@cosmozilla.net) Received: from cosmozilla.net (dev1.u2en.net [205.238.26.184]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501AF13C46B for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:22:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tthomas@cosmozilla.net) Received: from [192.168.1.201] (utrain.postmarks.com [216.99.211.120]) by cosmozilla.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E249FB83A for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46EFE5E6.9000602@cosmozilla.net> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:18 -0700 From: Ted Thomas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: 20040501144552.GA30512@dragon.roe.ch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: autoconf/automake guru wanted [gnuplot-4.0 with patches] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:22:58 -0000 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