From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 6 12:24:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA07160F for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eu1sys200aog125.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog125.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05E0D74C for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:24:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob125.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKVFtoaoV7z1jd7Ry10xDPf1KOHMS4aKcD@postini.com; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:24:18 UTC Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id d1so1302996wiv.9 for ; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 04:24:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:message-id:to:subject:reply-to :in-reply-to; bh=GVZRlKCQo6x/i2VYlpMpfLfVTMFlCdgXzuVqsKWKyBA=; b=Pw9eZMCM+sjqLc1Oy6/3HP1dv7019KqqE3UQSBJVDznTTJXKyxScSqDOQWl5cHOOpN 1imFIW+nI+7VNGmMiCG++0EhIjx+XY/HM6k9mIy3o0OXKv0tFfHzFHhh0NLHHAwPzB5e l4xXn2F7e+5wQGK0T8sGjuxEnnuTUa1aU0JOwuW0dQRuD6a8SFGqBBkMOGwJBXfv/WJI XVOHFCAt9qXq31GW9RZJHL40O4RygDYoyslhl41wHcWWZRGwh8B/7ezPA6GsVHUGLrsz Wj0QBf+djHL+c7r0jPLHs7K7LSGDHhUh1JinTZa2JUJBXog3ez5QZpad1QOvifsvDN7q WKHQ== X-Received: by 10.181.13.20 with SMTP id eu20mr38675224wid.36.1415265886689; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 01:24:46 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlwFXu5PO8hx5YFCKXg7po74nXQVIeN/os1R3VLvStflNUZFWH1CofexKzAkwgJ996kEOwRSmeH78a1i19SGzEMKdn3B5rH/Jfx9wATevUfx8wMFAa+M8LkfjhwtA6PgKWuNakI+gsVIvL8mEpzjezJWdRpAA== X-Received: by 10.181.13.20 with SMTP id eu20mr38675216wid.36.1415265886613; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 01:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk (mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk. [137.222.187.221]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t7sm7053159wjy.24.2014.11.06.01.24.45 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Nov 2014 01:24:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 01:24:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:24:44 GMT Received: from mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA69OiIN074173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:24:44 GMT (envelope-from mexas@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk) Received: (from mexas@localhost) by mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id sA69OiJp074172; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:24:44 GMT (envelope-from mexas) From: Anton Shterenlikht Message-Id: <201411060924.sA69OiJp074172@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> To: feld@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, jeffreybouquet@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2) Reply-To: mexas@bris.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <1415234542.3472540.187608725.1C104533@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:24:18 -0000 I've been following this discussion with growing alarm. A similarly elevated tone conversation led to dougb@ (the portmaster author) leaving the project a few years back, when pkg was first introduced. I think the project has lost as a result. As a user, I see and appreciate the initiative and strategic vision of some devs, but I also understand the value of stability, incremental change and back-ported solutions. Please let's find the way forward that does not alienate too many people. I urge the developers advocating significant changes not to dismiss user concerns. poudriere is a good example. It is an excellent tool that I on tier-2 systems. However, it is wise that this, again excellent tool, is optional. >Mixing packages and ports is *not* supported and never has been. This is >another cause of unnecessary bug reports. I'm not sure what you mean here. I've systems where I install 99% of packages from official repo servers, and then rebuild 1% from ports where the default options are no good for me. Is this not supported? Or do you mean something else? > >The only "tweaking" you should be doing is changing port build options, >and they'll be available via (sub)packages according to the current >roadmap. Only in rare circumstances should you need to manually build >ports. sub-packages sounds like another big change. So please give example of such circumstances. Thanks Anton