Quoting Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 7 Jun 2007
05:16:05 -0400):
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:22:29AM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Wed, 6 Jun 2007
20:55:38 -0500):
>On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:44:50PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>The FreeBSD project does not have the resources (or desire) to effectively
>>do full-time incremental X.org release engineering because of X.org
>>changes being continuously pushed into ports.
Who decides what is going in and what not? What changes are allowed to
go in and which aren't (read: what's the definition of "important"
here)?
"Fixes an application crash" or "Fixes a security vulnerability" would
be good reasons. "Fixes some manpage typos" or "Adds a new cursor
theme" or "Adds some linux-specific cruft" would not be :-) I don't
want to have to be the guardian of this myself so I hope the x11@
mailing list will self-regulate with a bit of guidance.
Basically everyone needs to be aware that commits to x.org core ports
(those in the dependency path of xorg-libraries, basically) need to
come with a clear justification of why the update is required, so if
you are prepared to defend yourself with solid arguments on that point
then you probably have a reason to proceed.
Ok, thanks.
>The last I checked, i386 package builds take ~5 days, amd64 take ~7 days,
>sparc64 take more than 3 weeks. If we push point releases any faster than
>these dates, we will never have current packages. I think this would be
>a serious mistake.
4 weeks would be still too fast for changes to X11 ports, I assume.
That kind of timescale should be manageable.
Time will tell... :)
>I've spent a lot of time looking at why packages are so far behind the
>ports and the deep dependency trees are the major part of the problem.
So switching to recording explicit dependencies only would give a
speed improvement in this case (why shall we rebuild an application
which depends on some gnome libs but doesn't make some X11 API calls
directly, the package will not change significantly)?
Sometimes a port doesn't care when a dependency changes, sometimes it
does - how do you tell those two cases apart with 100% accuracy? I
don't think you can.
I think it's within the "what do we use as run-depends"-class, isn't
it? We don't get it right in some cases, but most of the time we get
it right. When we don't get it right it's a bug, and it is resolved
fast for VIPs (Very Important Ports) and is not that critical for
"niche-ports".
For the actual-package-depends target (not committed yet, I hope it is
under testing in an exp run, don't forget the pkg-tools patch and the
clean target patch as they helps much) I have a simple patch which
allows to switch to explicit dependencies (not tested yet) on runtime.
This would have to be tested in a tinderbox first (any volunteers
around?), as I expect some problems. After that an exp-run would be
interesting.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
BOFH excuse #77:
Typo in the code
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
