Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:07:02 +0200 From: Michal Varga <varga.michal@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Ports system quality Message-ID: <1314601622.82067.441.camel@xenon> In-Reply-To: <4E5B320E.8010503@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E5A48AC.6050201@eskk.nu> <20058.20743.791783.342355@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <BLU0-SMTP182102B9C96837517ECB6BB93150@phx.gbl> <20110828172651.GB277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828173059.GT17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828181356.GD277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828183300.GX17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828184542.GE277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828152234.54cc9fac@seibercom.net> <20110828193046.GA668@magic.hamla.org> <1314564889.82067.89.camel@xenon> <4E5AB672.4020607@FreeBSD.org> <1314585798.82067.338.camel@xenon> <4E5B0EFB.6000900@FreeBSD.org> <1314596096.82067.419.camel@xenon> <4E5B320E.8010503@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 23:30 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > Testing only for "Does it still build?" won't help much anymore if the > > new version silently broke one of the APIs and while Apache still runs > > with it fine > > Believe it or not, I understand that. :) The problem is that extensive > run-time testing is not within the realm of possibility without an army > of volunteers. Do you want to organize that effort? That would be the very opposite of the concept I just described. While extensive volunteer testing, if considered standalone, is surely not a bad idea (just that for some reason it never happens anywhere), it lies in a completely different scope than port maintainers *not* randomly upgrading dependencies just on their own without regard to other ports they will affect (and in many cases break, be it on build level, or run-time level). I just double checked if I possibly forgot to send the other half of my email, but nope, it's all right there. > > Now where I'm trying to get by this: > > > > Either we want to have ports as a "big repository of colorful stuff that > > even builds", or we want to have some actual products that people can > > use after they build them. And that needs an additional level of quality > > control that FreeBSD currently, and horribly, lacks (patches welcome, I > > know). > > That sounds like PC-BSD to me. (Seriously, give it a try) Now that's like saying I might want to try *Linux and OS X too (I occasionally use both, just not as my primary desktop, which is FreeBSD). Speaking about PC-BSD, I'm not exactly fan of KDE and also, I find the concept of PBI packages highly offending. Then again, I can't see how would PC-BSD help in this case as it's the exact opposite of what I described. The fact that PC-BSD just tracks ports and builds self-contained packages from them doesn't automagically make them better product, it's still the same ports, but now just horribly packaged too. m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1314601622.82067.441.camel>