> I am not sure if this is a rant in favour or against quarterly branches.
> And this discussion comes up again and again quite regularly. I wonder
> why ports don't follow the development model of the FreeBSD kernel?
- lack of developer time
We have bapt who develops pkg. bdrewery, who does poudriere.
A small group works on the ports framework.
There are a few who report issues and fixes.
I think that's it, and all work on huge workloads.
They add features that are even more important than
perfecting quarterly. Quarterly was not meant to fix all issues,
it was meant as a test to learn what comes up if one provides
some more stable pkg tree besides the HEAD.
- lack of maintainer and committer time
maintainers and committers have to track lots of changes,
and it's already hard to keep up with HEAD and quarterly.
So many changes are never merged to quarterly, because
it's difficult to grasp side effects.
About the 'lack-of-time': Please visit
and look at the numbers. Do it from time to time. Plot
the trajectory 8-} Submit patches to the bugzilla project that allows
us to track the trajectory 8-}
So, in general: trust the folks who do the complicated work, and
please react in a friendly way to issues you encounter. Report
them using bugzilla.freebsd.org. Search on bugzilla for
similar reports and add to them with additional tests,
If, after all this 'keeping-up' leaves you with spare brain cycles,
start submitting patches, and learn the big picture. It's amazingly
> Then it would be a matter of creating a scheme for url addresses for
> easy access to these folders with build packages.
The scheme has to be implemented in the tools.
p...@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"