Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:24:48 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <19970801182448.26268@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <199708010601.XAA18505@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>; from Satoshi Asami on Thu, Jul 31, 1997 at 11:01:28PM -0700 References: <199708010601.XAA18505@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 31, 1997 at 11:01:28PM -0700, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> We will make sure everything compiles and
> works in 2.2-stable, so when the next release comes out, we'll have a
> functional set of packgaes. (Also, people following -current are
> generally more capable of building stuff themselves. :)
But unable to build really working 2.2 packages, because they
only have -current :-/
> This is truly a sad day. The irony of this all is that it really
> didn't have to happen, and it would have been possible for us to
> support both 3.0-current and 2.2-stable if more consideration has been
> made before some commits into -current.
Well, wouldnīt it make more sense to discuss, to back out the
changes that introduces these problems ?
Very very sad is, that in my eyes tcl 8.x brings us really
_nothing_ from the Operating systems view, but finally it
breaks the whole concept, that -current ports can be used
in 99% of cases in 2.2 and -current.
We want to improve the Operating System -> thatīs FreeBSD, not
compete with Linux to pickup the last bits and bytes, that
break something.
Why was TCL not brought into the ports collection ???
We already have several TCL versions there for backward
compatibility ... why not put the newest stuff into there
with respect to the problems. that now arise ?
Generally we had the policy, to use the ports collection for
new stuff, that belongs to FreeBSD.
I think itīs time to re-think, what really belongs into
the operating system and what not ...
Woulnīt it be better to come to a decision, that such
things like perl and tcl, _if_ they are needed in the
base system, should be of the same version in -current
and -stable ?!
> For instance, there is no reason why tcl-8.0beta2 had to go
> into the tree now, whether the tree is called -current or not.
I fully agree, if I read now the big _disadvantages_
> It is dubbed BETA of all things on the master site, and we haven't
> even had it in our ports area to test it.
Then Iīd vote "back it out!" ;-)
> As some people have noted, there is no matching tk version in our
> ports tree either. The latest incident just reinforces my belief that
> it was a mistake in the first place to include something like tcl in
> the base distribution (note that it was also done without consensus
> back then), and one we may regret for a long time to come.
I think itīs time to "purify" our sources. I think itīs a bad idea,
to have only a ports collection based on -STABLE.
Ports should at least run with -STABLE and -CURRENT. I only run
-current, create ports myself and Iīm unable to build up a
-STABLE system to test my ports for 2.2-STABLE systems.
And I donīt want to go back to -STABLE, because I have a SMP
system and like the bleeding edge more ...
Iīd like to say "peope, letīs try to find a way out of this
mess" ....
Andreas ///
--
Andreas Klemm | klemm.gtn.com - powered by
Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/benches.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970801182448.26268>