Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:54:06 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: joeb <joeb@a1poweruser.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. Message-ID: <20081029095406.GA69223@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBCEDMCMAA.joeb@a1poweruser.com> References: <20081029084637.GA68812@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBCEDMCMAA.joeb@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:02:14PM +0800, joeb wrote: > How does kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8 or php5-gd or pdflib fit into those > reasons you gave? > These all have ports but no package for many releases of Freebsd. > For print/pdflib it is legal restrictions. (The Makefile says "RESTRICTED= many odd restrictions on usage and distribution") As for graphics/php5-gd and net-im/kopete ports, they both seem to be available as pre-built packages so I am not sure what problem you are having with them. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Trulsson [mailto:ertr1013@student.uu.se] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:47 PM > To: FBSD1 > Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG; ports@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote: > > It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for > > real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the > > source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted. > > Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to > the > > package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their > > changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management > > on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing > > packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its > > being mis-managed. > > It is not port managers who create or upload packages. Most of them do not > even have access to the package server. > The downloadable packages are built and uploaded automatically by a cluster > of servers that do little else. > > If a particular port does not have a corresponding package it is generally > not due to laxness on anybodys part. > > The main reasons why a port might not have corresponding package are: > > 1) The port has just been created and the package hasn't had time to built > yet. Normally a very temporary situation. > > 2) Legal restrictions. There are several ports where it is simply not legal > for the FreeBSD project to distribute the corresponding binary packages. > > 3) The port is currently broken and cannot be built. (This is of course a > bug which should be fixed as soon as possible. For ports without a > maintainer that might take a while.) > > 4) One or more of the dependencies of the package is not available as a > package. (If port A depends on port B, and there does not exist a > package for B (for any of the reasons listed here) there will not be > a package of A either. > > > > > > > An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing > > packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so > port/pkg > > management staff can review first and them populate the production package > > server. > > All the packages that can be built and distributed are already being built > and uploaded. Allowing users to upload packages would not help. > -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081029095406.GA69223>