Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:35:57 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Cy Schubert <cy@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r364739 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/syslog-ng-devel sysutils/syslog-ng-devel/files Message-ID: <53EA7AAD.8050303@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <201408122017.s7CKHPaT041051@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201408122017.s7CKHPaT041051@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/12/2014 22:17, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <53EA7416.5080008@marino.st>, John Marino writes: >> On 8/12/2014 21:56, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> On 8/12/2014 2:44 PM, John Marino wrote: >>>> On 8/12/2014 21:39, Cy Schubert wrote: >>>>> Author: cy >>>>> Date: Tue Aug 12 19:39:33 2014 >>>>> New Revision: 364739 >>>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/364739 >>>>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r364739/ >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> Reintroduce syslog-ng-devel for 3.6.0alpha2. >>>>> >>>>> Submitted by: Peter Czanik <peter.czanik@balabit.com> (syslog-ng upli >> ne) >>>> >>>> >>>> Do Ports really need alpha quality -devel ports in the collection? >>>> >>>> If it were up to me I'd purge 90% of our -devel ports. I tried to start >>>> a conversation about a policy for these with portmgr, but as usual, only >>>> one person responded. I'd still like to have that conversation though. >>>> This -devel port trend is disturbing. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>> >>> Why? Devel ports need testing and there are many users willing to use >>> them. Poudriere-devel probably has more users than the main port right >>> now, judging from feedback I have received. >> >> As ports directly to improve FreeBSD infrastructure, poudriere-devel and >> pkg-devel are included in my 10%. (as in they are ok) >> >> As for why: >> 1) They become a burden on everyone, even if they have a maintainer. >> Sweeping changes have to be applied twice. > > For the few -devel ports that there actually are I don't think this is a > biggie. They aren't so few, and new -devel ports are being proposed in bugzilla all the time for reasons that I consider weak. Like I said, it's trending upwards. >> 2) What if every port had a -devel version? Now we are taking 45k+ >> ports. > > That's unrealistic.This would never happen. It is unrealistic, but to illustrate a point. The port count is elevated and if this trend continues, it will go up. >> 3) -devel versions are poor quality often > > Not always. There are many GA versions of poorer quality than many -devel > ports. Since the alpha or beta version has not been properly tested (by definition), I don't see how this can be claimed or demonstrated with certainty. Obviously you hope they are fixing bugs but they could be introducing bugs. To use a beta version for a specific feature is the definition of assuming risk. It also says something (negative) about the release process of that s/w if users are compelled to use the alpha/beta versions over designated releases. >> 4) -devel versions are often neglected and are often older than the >> stable version > > This can occur for many reasons. If they're neglected due to us, then > delete the port. If the port is in between releases, then it's part of the > release cycle. It's always because of us. Some of these -devel maintainers set the port to IGNORE when it's the same as the stable, which is I guess the best they can do (other than not have introduced the port in the first place) >> To me, they are more trouble than they are worth especially when the >> ports are reset. I think there should be a pretty high bar for devel >> ports, and maintainer need to justify why they want to convert the >> FreeBSD community into a testers for third party software (which is the >> reason I've heard). >> >> With the exception of FreeBSD functionality, keep the testing out of >> ports. It will improve the quality and easy our collective maintenance >> burder. > > Let's agree to disagree. Well, you'll never convince me alpha/beta s/w is better than a (verified) release. I can reasonable listen to your specific argument about syslog-ng-devel and that other one and say, "ok, that makes sense for this port" but I would like in general for the policy to be that there has to be a solid benefit to *FreeBSD* for a -devel port to exist. Most reasons seem to benefit the 3rd party software because they get a bigger test community. (as a rhetorical question, do we really 3 version of syslog-ng, now 4 versions? why can't this be reduced? It's like have 5 versions of emacs) John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53EA7AAD.8050303>