Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:14:45 -0700 From: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BIND segway -> python -> first-class ports Message-ID: <0BD5B14A-1931-40FA-BB4C-487BED772E09@jnielsen.net> In-Reply-To: <529E8C53.6020208@freebsd.org> References: <mailman.313.1386119137.1390.freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> <529E8C53.6020208@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 3, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > I have said before that in my opinion we should have two classes of = ports. > Mechanically they are handled the same but class 1 ports are "standard = additions", > and if they don't work it's a "stop-ship" condition.. These would be = MAJOR ports.. > like a minimal python, a minimal Perl (ok yuk but some people would = insist), > BIND, Sendmail, bash, and other things that people EXPECT to be in a = FreeBSD system. > If you break such a port it has the same weight as breaking something = in base, > but it's not base.. Whether we like it or not, 'pkg' is now (as of 10.0) effectively a = "first-class" port, since although it lives in ports it is relied on by = the base system (pkg bootstrapper) to provide core functionality = (package management). Since we have such a distinction it would be useful to make official so = we could, for example, do more frequent build and regression tests of = such ports. And if we're going to do that for one port we might as well = do it for several... JN
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0BD5B14A-1931-40FA-BB4C-487BED772E09>