From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 14 00:31:42 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AD41065674 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:31:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238288FC21 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:31:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k31so2655603fkk.11 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.58.3 with SMTP id g3mr13227815fga.21.1215976985558; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.51.1 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0807131223s4659bd3cv6e0a633daf6f2d05@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:23:05 -0700 From: "Garrett Cooper" To: "FreeBSD Ports" In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0807131221r41f6a361x71df518eca3f3c46@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200807100340.38399.david@vizion2000.net> <200807110919.50885.david@vizion2000.net> <18551.34465.624986.569002@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <200807111138.36884.david@vizion2000.net> <4877AC3E.3050800@FreeBSD.org> <84B7D49E-038C-4AEB-A7E8-95135698C4F0@khera.org> <487A1D33.7070209@sh.cvut.cz> <7d6fde3d0807131221r41f6a361x71df518eca3f3c46@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:31:42 -0000 On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:20 AM, V=E1clav Haisman wr= ote: > > What if the ports infrastructure had additional flag, say EXPERIMENTAL. > Ports marked as such would not build/install by default unless something, > say ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_PORTS=3Dyes, was defined. That way we (people > interested in the port) can work on improving it without burdening users > that want just stable things. > > Without existing port, even if broken one, nobody can easily start helpin= g, > unless the person wants to start over from scratch, which is considerably > harder than starting from semi-finished/working port. V=E1clav, Given experience with the ports tree, it's such a large beast that doing something like that would be unreasonable. This isn't Gentoo's portage tree where packages can be masked and unmasked at will. Adding an EXPERIMENTAL flag would just complicate things a lot. However, like back in the day (last year) when major changes affected the ports tree when X.org 7.2 was being imported, Florent published a snapshot of the tree (IIRC) and allowed people to verify whether or not it was stable. Then again the main ports tree was also frozen, so meh... Operating with a separate Perl ports dir (lang/perl5.10) than mainline (lang/perl) would also be helpful I would think... -Garrett