From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 1 19:32:23 2007 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 1647E16A420 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:32:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net (77-99-36-42.cable.ubr04.chap.blueyonder.co.uk [77.99.36.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9096813C442 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:32:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: by dns1.vizion2000.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 775861CC4F; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:49:11 -0800 (PST) From: David Southwell Organization: Voice and Vision To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:49:11 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <200712010948.34363.david@vizion2000.net> <20071201182840.GA35127@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20071201182840.GA35127@owl.midgard.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712011149.11212.david@vizion2000.net> Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze 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: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:32:23 -0000 On Saturday 01 December 2007 10:28:40 Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 09:48:34AM -0800, David Southwell wrote: > > On Saturday 01 December 2007 08:48:41 Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 07:49:00AM -0800, David Southwell wrote: > > > > On Saturday 01 December 2007 05:58:21 Thierry Thomas wrote: > > > > > On Sat 1 dec 07 at 14:25:08 +0100, Erik Trulsson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > The ports freeze is intended to make sure the ports tree is in a > > > > > > stable and well tested state for the release. Updating major > > > > > > ports always carry a great risk of breaking things thus defeating > > > > > > the point of the freeze. > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, if the freeze is too long, and if the new version is > > > > > released several weeks after the thaw, very few will install these > > > > > packages: a lot of updates will be committed, and many users will > > > > > update their ports tree to install the new versions. This is very > > > > > difficult to find a good compromise! > > > > > > > > I do not think we need a compromise we need a different system. We > > > > need one that preserves continuity of support for existing systems > > > > while the new releases are testedin a way that does not adversely > > > > impact them. The priority needs to be the current user base not a > > > > desire to rush a new release out the door at all costs. > > > > > > Considering that FreeBSD releases almost always get delayed by several > > > weeks compared to the original schedule I think it is safe to say that > > > "a desire to rush a new release out the door at all costs" is something > > > that the FreeBSD project certainly does not suffer from. > > > > I believe this to be head in the sand logic.IMHO It is rushing it out the > > door at all costs if the cost is a port freeze!!! > > I do not follow your logic at all. I do not see the rushing part occuring. > The ports freeze is a consequence of *not* rushing out the release, but > instead pausing and making sure everything is right before making the > release. > > > A port freeze is the most user > > unfriendly act that one could think of! > > Not even close. Having lots of broken ports would be much more user > unfriendly. To most users a ports freeze is probably no more than a minor > inconvenience, if they even notice it. > > > > Now it may be that due to the ports freeze, there will be some ports > > > whose upgrade will be delayed for a couple of weeks (not to be confused > > > with those ports whose upgrade gets delayed for other reasons.) > > > I do not consider this to be a major problem. > > > > > > I think you vastly overestimate the need for the ports tree to always > > > have the latest versions of all softwares contained therein. > > > > The ports system and new release development systems need to move > > seemlessly not interfere with one another. This means a rethink of the > > fundamental assumptions that drive current policies and practice. > > What "fundamental assumptions" are you thinking of? > > > > In those very rare cases where a user just cannot wait 2-3 weeks extra > > > for an upgrade, they can always try to build the software themselves > > > outside the ports system. > > > > I regard this view as developer centric rather than user centric. As I > > have said elsewhere the ports system is freebsd msp and users are not > > naturally comnfortable with building outside the ports system. If they > > were we would not need the system!!! > > I believe there is only a quite small minority of users who actually *need* > to have all the ports updated as quickly as possible. Most of those users > are probably sufficiently technically proficient to be able to handle > building things outside the ports system. > > All those users who want to be able to install a new release with > accompanying packages and just want it to work 'out of the box' without > *having* to upgrade anything are probably better off with the current > policies. I don't know, but I suspect those are the majority of ordinary > users. This sounds to me like wishful thinking but, more importantly, it seems like a diversion from reality. The real question is why on earth we cannot manage things better so no port freeze is needed!! Its very existence is a real or potential disadvantage to users and a disadvantage that is both illogical and unnecessary. The number to whom it is disadvantageous will vary with circumstance. > > > Personally, as a user, I have never really been even slightly inconvienced > by any of the ports tree freezes. All I can say is bully for you! The question is how do we get rid of a p[roblem even if it is not a disadvantage for you personally. It is disappointing when one hears arguments not to change simply because one particular individual is not disadvantaged by a currently illogical and antiquated solution to a problem that will inevitably grow as the number of ports increase. We need to grasp the nettle while we may!! David Southwell