Date: 15 Apr 1999 12:54:07 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk Makefile Message-ID: <xzpiuayxigg.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: asami@FreeBSD.org's message of "Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:38:11 -0700 (PDT)" References: <199904150719.AAA49596@freefall.freebsd.org> <xzplnfuxni2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <199904150938.CAA62650@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) writes: > * From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> > > * IMHO, it's still completely bogus. The ports makefiles interpret the > * contents of port.mkversion as some kind of version number for the > * system makefiles, but all it actually tells you is when those files > * were last copied from one place to another. Hello, reality check? I > > I'm tired of this. There has been a long discussion on this already > before it was added. Please check the mail archives. Yes. Your arguments of 'reducing the support load' are bogus, too. You haven't reduced anything; you've at best changed the question they ask, and at worst increased the support load significantly, because your port.mkversion hack is unreliable to say the least and will produce false negatives in numerous cases. Your obscene hack may prevent a few users from shooting themselves in the foot (or from submitting PRs because they can't distinguish a version mismatch from a bug), but in many (most?) cases it just gratuitously breaks the ports collection by producing false positives or false negatives. I'll really laugh my (insert your favorite feature of anatomy) off if I ever see a ports team member complain about people who have outdated systems with an up-to-date port.mkversion because they ran make world with old sources or rolled their own port.mkversion. Adding -A to the fetch command line was bogus, too, for similar reasons. I'd be very interested to know the exact percentage of ports which fail (or may potentially fail) to build when fetch is invoked without -A. Compare this to the percentage of ports which failed to build on slightly-too-old systems after you added -A to the fetch command line: 100%. Then explain to me why this is not 'optimizing for the least common case'. By the way, have you considered verifying the MD5 checksum during make fetch, so that if the checksum fails, you move on to the next master site instead of pretending you have a correct distfile and bailing out later? This would make -A superfluous, and would allow ports-current to work on 3.1-RELEASE. The ports collection used to be really cool, but these days it just not as much fun as it used to be. I'm very sorry to see you've chosen quantity over quality. Yes, there is an impressive amount of ports in the tree, but quality control is inexistant, and there is a growing number of ports whose sole purpose seems to be to fill the quota. And then there's this elitist attitude of gratuitiously refusing to work on systems older than the latest Linux kernel-of-the-week... DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpiuayxigg.fsf>