Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:06:42 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: eculp <eculp@encontacto.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "stable" ports? Message-ID: <7d6fde3d1003300006r5fa158aanae3fb2a389d331d2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100329175739.47637e8sufvimko4@econet.encontacto.net> References: <hoqikd$o2h$1@dough.gmane.org> <5A0E5B0A-B81F-4CCE-8E63-DAE662CD31B4@lafn.org> <hor08a$gct$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100329175739.47637e8sufvimko4@econet.encontacto.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:57 PM, eculp <eculp@encontacto.net> wrote: > 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 t= o >>>> 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 buil= d >>> a port successfully, does not necessarily mean it will work properly. = =A0For >>> example, qpopper (which I maintain) has an issue where one feature does= not >>> work properly on 64 bit machines where it works fine on 32 bit machines= . =A0In >>> addition, there are a number of other machine types that are currently = not >>> heavily used but might become so in the future. =A0Thats a lot of diffe= rent >>> 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 both >> the project and the maintainer cannot find suitable build and test machi= nes, >> I'd suggest using ONLY_FOR_ARCHS, or doing the whole "stable" dance only= for >> Tier 1 platforms (enumerated in >> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/archs.html to be >> i386, amd64, pc98). AFAIK from the ports POW, pc98 and i386 are too clos= e to >> be considered separately. >> >> Virtualization (VirtualBox) may help maintainers test on the architectur= e >> they don't run natively. > > IIRC, pcbsd uses both ports and package system that I have assumed was > similar to linux but I have never used it so I can't comment but it would > seem practical to work together if there is common ground. Their site say= s: > -- > The PBI Format > > Part of making a Desktop Operating System that people feel immediately > comfortable with is ensuring that software installation is as easy and > familiar as possible. PC-BSD has taken this approach when developing the = PBI > (Pc-Bsd Installer or Push-Button Installer) file format. Programs under > PC-BSD are completely self-contained and self-installing, in a graphical > format. A PBI file also ships with all the files and libraries necessary = for > the installed program to function, eliminating much of the hardship of > dealing with broken dependencies and system incompatibilities. PBI files > also provide developers and packagers with advanced scripting and user > interaction in an entirely graphical format, making the entire install > procedure similar to what a user would expect from other popular graphica= l > operating systems. > -- > > I personally like the way the ports work and will probably not change to = any > type of packages but you never know. =A0I have never felt comfortable wit= h the > Linux packages. From what I've heard PBIs actually resemble OSX's dmgs more than Linux packages as Linux doesn't package in `bundle' format (contain all of the needed applications and libraries in one container). HTH, -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7d6fde3d1003300006r5fa158aanae3fb2a389d331d2>