Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:57:39 -0500 From: eculp <eculp@encontacto.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "stable" ports? Message-ID: <20100329175739.47637e8sufvimko4@econet.encontacto.net> In-Reply-To: <hor08a$gct$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <hoqikd$o2h$1@dough.gmane.org> <5A0E5B0A-B81F-4CCE-8E63-DAE662CD31B4@lafn.org> <hor08a$gct$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>: > Doug Hardie wrote: >> On 29 March 2010, at 08:57, Ivan Voras wrote: >> >>> In some cases the burdens are obvious - the maintainer(s) would need to >>> e.g. maintain three versions of the ports - a random example would be >>> e.g. X.Org 7.0 for 6.x, 7.2 for 7.x and 7.4 for 8.x. Another would be >>> keeping PHP 5.2 for 7.x and 8.x and having 5.3 in the future >>> (CURRENT/9.x) branch. >> >> I am a bit concerned about your concept of maintain, being able to =20 >> build a port successfully, does not necessarily mean it will work =20 >> properly. For example, qpopper (which I maintain) has an issue =20 >> where one feature does not work properly on 64 bit machines where =20 >> it works fine on 32 bit machines. In addition, there are a number =20 >> of other machine types that are currently not heavily used but =20 >> might become so in the future. Thats a lot of different =20 >> combinations of hardware and OSs to keep running for the maintainers. > > It was done (in Linux), hence it can be done. If all else fails and =20 > both the project and the maintainer cannot find suitable build and =20 > test machines, I'd suggest using ONLY_FOR_ARCHS, or doing the whole =20 > "stable" dance only for Tier 1 platforms (enumerated in =20 > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/archs.html =20 > to be i386, amd64, pc98). AFAIK from the ports POW, pc98 and i386 =20 > are too close to be considered separately. > > Virtualization (VirtualBox) may help maintainers test on the =20 > architecture they don't run natively. IIRC, pcbsd uses both ports and package system that I have assumed was =20 similar to linux but I have never used it so I can't comment but it =20 would seem practical to work together if there is common ground. Their =20 site says: -- The PBI Format Part of making a Desktop Operating System that people feel immediately =20 comfortable with is ensuring that software installation is as easy and =20 familiar as possible. PC-BSD has taken this approach when developing =20 the PBI (Pc-Bsd Installer or Push-Button Installer) file format. =20 Programs under PC-BSD are completely self-contained and =20 self-installing, in a graphical format. A PBI file also ships with all =20 the files and libraries necessary for the installed program to =20 function, eliminating much of the hardship of dealing with broken =20 dependencies and system incompatibilities. PBI files also provide =20 developers and packagers with advanced scripting and user interaction =20 in an entirely graphical format, making the entire install procedure =20 similar to what a user would expect from other popular graphical =20 operating systems. -- I personally like the way the ports work and will probably not change =20 to any type of packages but you never know. I have never felt =20 comfortable with the Linux packages. Have a great day, ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100329175739.47637e8sufvimko4>