Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:17:25 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> To: 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: <201408122017.s7CKHPaT041051@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> of "Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:07:50 %2B0200." <53EA7416.5080008@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > > 2) What if every port had a -devel version? Now we are taking 45k+ > ports. That's unrealistic.This would never happen. > > 3) -devel versions are poor quality often Not always. There are many GA versions of poorer quality than many -devel ports. > > 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. > > 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. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201408122017.s7CKHPaT041051>