Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:03:42 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: overzealous cleaning of Attics in ports tree Message-ID: <3A5F46FD.A94A42FE@FreeBSD.org> References: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0101121134001.24868-100000@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Trevor Johnson wrote:
> > This is customary in the ports tree. As you may have seen in the
> > past, the ports tree will undergo a periodic Attic cleansing.
>
> I never noticed it before. I suppose I haven't been keeping a copy of the
> repository long enough, or I didn't watch cvsup carefully enough. I don't
> see it mentioned in the Porter's Handbook, nor the Committer's Guide.
>
> > There will be way too many dead files lying about otherwise.
>
> It costs me five cents to store the entire FreeBSD repo on a CD-R. Over
> time, the cost of disks and tapes has (doubtless with some exceptions)
> decreased. I have the impression that most people do not keep a full copy
> of the repository, only the checked-out sources or a release CD-ROM.
> Supposing that's true, only a few people store the dead files.
>
> > (By the way, the reason why I am so adamant about having repo-copies
> > done when a replacement port enters a tree is precisely because of
> > this.)
>
> Sometimes files can be sent to an Attic, yet no replacement is made.
> Such files can still have value. For instance, the AUIS port was sent to
> the Attic in October of 1999 because it would only compile in a.out
> format. IMO the files could still be useful. For instance, someone might
> want to compile it under FreeBSD 2.x and make the binaries available. I
> know that porters aren't officially supposed to support 2.x (sometimes I
> wish that applied to 3.x as well ;) ) but the minimal support of keeping
> old files around--so someone can check out the ports tree as it was in the
> past--is of value IMO. I know that with 4.x, "make release" requires some
> ported software: docbook and jade come to mind. Suppose that one of
> those ports was killed, or even just renamed. If the policy of purging
> dead files from the ports tree remains in place, people would no longer be
> able to build old releases of FreeBSD. Being able to do so has value.
> There was a recent discussion on freebsd-current ("Fixing a.out
> compatibility") in which the need emerged for someone with a 2.x box to
> build ld.so on it. Anyway, as for AUIS again, someone might want to make a
> port of just the fonts from it. Someone might want to make a port of AUIS
> and notice that (after this purge) none exists. Having the dead files
> would give such a person a head start, or at least alert him to the ELF
> problems. If you look at the AUIS files in the tarball I made, I think
> you'll agree that this was not a trivial port.
>
> Another example is the gyve ports. They were killed because Ade Lovett
> wanted to get rid of GTK+ 1.0. The GYVE ports had not been updated in a
> long time, so they still used that old library. It looks to me as though
> the reason they had not been updated is that no one had noticed the
> project's new site, www.gyve.org. I've not looked at it closely, but I
> have a hunch that the current GYVE will work with a more recent GTK+.
> There's a probability that the dead files would be of use for someone who
> wishes to make an updated port.
>
> As the maintainer of aumix (http://jpj.net/~trevor/aumix.html), sometimes
> I look at old versions. Compiling them on FreeBSD is easier with the
> port. Some of them required patches, all of which have been purged. If I
> allow the purged files to vanish from my own copy of the repository, it
> will become slightly more difficult for me to support FreeBSD.
>
> Another example from the tarball I made is the rzsz port. I would liken
> it to a sign on a repository for radioactive waste. It should be kept
> around for a long time, to warn people of the danger.
I agree wholeheartedly with Trevor's arguments above. Peter, Satoshi, could be
get overcleaned Attics back? I suppose there shoud be backups somewhere so not
all lost, isn't it?
-Maxim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A5F46FD.A94A42FE>