Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

Hi, On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 09:13:11AM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > Regarding updating pandoc, see https://trac.macports.org/ticket/48324 > Regarding updating ghc, see https://trac.macports.org/ticket/48899 > Regarding old llvm on Sierra, see https://trac.macports.org/ticket/52424 As a follow-up

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

Please, everyone, stop. We are keeping our Trac issue tracker; this has been decided. We will not use GitHub issues at this time because it does not have the features we need. We will move our code to GitHub because it has been requested by many users over the years and will help attract new

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > I understand that. Many long-running projects are using their own Git > infrastructure with Trac, Redmine and others. What I don't understand is > why moving to GitHub at all when the tooling is clearly

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/08, Brandon Allbery wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: I for one don't understand why one would carry around all that baggage anyhow. Why not leave the old Trac as is and start fresh with a simple, reduced issue tracker When the

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > What concerns me is the statement that in this migration to github, github > and trac are kept completely separate, with no automatic linkage, but still > contributors are expected to use both. What I heard was

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > I for one don't understand why one would carry around all that baggage > anyhow. Why not leave the old Trac as is and start fresh with a simple, > reduced issue tracker > When the simple reduced tracker is, as

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/08, Chris Jones wrote: On 8 Oct 2016, at 11:29 am, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 7 Oct 2016, at 8:12 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:40

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 2016-10-9 06:10 , Marcel Bischoff wrote: On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: I see where you're coming from. However, your approach is contrary to how the majority of issues are handled on services like GitHub. If

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: On 16/10/08, Ryan Schmidt wrote: Requests for new ports could still be valid after years. This list could be helpful for newcomers that want to create new ports. Totally agree -

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 8 Oct 2016, at 11:29 am, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Christopher Jones >> wrote: >> >> >>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 8:12 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:40

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 8, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Davide Liessi wrote: > > Il sabato 8 ottobre 2016, Ryan Schmidt ha scritto: >> in future, they will instead open a GitHub pull request and paste a link to >> the pull request into the ticket (or paste a link to the

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 8, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > It seems counterproductive to me to close a ticket if you're not addressing > the issue. Just because nobody has done anything with a ticket for 6 months > or 2 years or whatever period of time doesn't necessarily mean

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: >> >> On 2016-10-07 20:58, Christopher Jones wrote: >>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:40 pm, Lawrence Velázquez

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > > On 16/10/07, Brandon Allbery wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> >>> the cool kids also aren't writing 'tcl' these days ... >> >> >> ...but the way they write

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Ken Cunningham > wrote: > >> On 2016-10-07, at 10:05 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: >> >> I am not sure how we could change these to make triaging trickets >> easier. > > I can't easily just look at the list and see what are new

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: > > On 2016-10-07 20:58, Christopher Jones wrote: >> >>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:40 pm, Lawrence Velázquez >>> wrote: >>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 2016-10-07 19:07, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > On 16/10/07, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> The problem is: somebody needs to do the correct work to update each of >> those ports to the latest version. In many cases, tickets are already >> filed, and you can look them up to see what the current status is;

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 2016-10-07 20:58, Christopher Jones wrote: > >> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:40 pm, Lawrence Velázquez >> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones >>> wrote: >>> >>> Currently, once they find out about svn, and trac >> >> We will still

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/07, Brandon Allbery wrote: On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: the cool kids also aren't writing 'tcl' these days ... ...but the way they write anything else, they might as well be writing fortran... Let me just chime in here and say that

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 2016-10-07, at 10:05 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: > I am not sure how we could change these to make triaging trickets easier. I can't easily just look at the list and see what are new requests for ports to be included in macports. It all mixed in with other things. Also, the committer time

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 7 Oct 2016, at 8:12 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> >>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: >>> >>> Currently, once they find out about svn, and

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: >> >> Currently, once they find out about svn, and trac > > We will still use Trac for issue tracking, although I believe someone is >

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 7 Oct 2016, at 8:08 pm, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Christopher Jones >> wrote: >> >>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:40 pm, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Christopher Jones > wrote: > >> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:40 pm, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> >>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: >>> >>> Currently, once they find out about svn,

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:40 pm, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: >> >> Currently, once they find out about svn, and trac > > We will still use Trac for issue tracking, although I believe someone is >

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 7 Oct 2016, at 7:38 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: >>> moving to GitHub doesn't magically make more interested parties make >>> quality contributions. >> >> I agree that moving to github is not

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > the cool kids also aren't writing 'tcl' these days ... ...but the way they write anything else, they might as well be writing fortran... -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > > Currently, once they find out about svn, and trac We will still use Trac for issue tracking, although I believe someone is looking into integrating GitHub sign in. vq ___

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Chris Jones wrote: >> moving to GitHub doesn't magically make more interested parties make quality >> contributions. > > I agree that moving to github is not going to suddenly make people where not > not previously looking for a packaging

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On 7 Oct 2016, at 6:08 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: It pains me to say that Homebrew is running circles around MacPorts in the department of current available packages. >>> >>>

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > > On 16/10/07, Guido Soranzio wrote: > [...] >> I really hope that the migration of MacPorts to GitHub will trigger a >> collaboration between the two communities at last. How would our switching to GitHub

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > > On 16/10/07, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> While the latter examples are just minor differences, especially >>> things >>> like ghc, fontforge an pandoc are either completely broken and/or >>> severely outdated. I'm

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/07, Guido Soranzio wrote: [...] I really hope that the migration of MacPorts to GitHub will trigger a collaboration between the two communities at last. That would be swell, indeed. Although I can't shake the feeling that it could be a clash of cultures. Kind of like old school coders

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > Thank you, this is a good illustration of what I mean when I write > MacPorts feels "stale", "dry" and "dated" when actually it is none of > those things. Having tickets open for 11 years does not inspire > confidence

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/07, Ken Cunningham wrote: And there are "requests for ports" ( I think this means new requests for ports that don’t presently exist, mostly) that go back 11 years. Port submissions that go back the same length of time. Possibly some kind of massive clean-out of the old, dead,

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: > > We are currently using the type field with "defect", "enhancement", > "update", "submission", "request". A ticket should be filed with the > appropriate type. > > To indicate a patch is attached to the ticket, we add

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 7, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: >>> It pains me to say that Homebrew is running circles around MacPorts in >>> the department of current available packages. >> >> [citation needed] ;-) > > Gladly. I have written a small script to check that. Here are

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/07, Ryan Schmidt wrote: While the latter examples are just minor differences, especially things like ghc, fontforge an pandoc are either completely broken and/or severely outdated. I'm not trying to badmouth anyone or anything, just pointing to the higher (successful) update rate in

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: >> It pains me to say that Homebrew is running circles around MacPorts in the department of current available packages. >>> >>> [citation needed] ;-) >> >> Gladly. I have written a small script to check

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 2016-10-07 18:25, Ken Cunningham wrote: > The current "port update" ticket queue I find to be a rather > unpredictable mixture of requests of port updates, requests for new > ports, announcements that somebody has noticed a version update has > come available, and finished port updates awaiting

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/07, Ryan Schmidt wrote: After all, MacPorts maintainers are just some people devoting their free time to writing Portfiles. Sometimes other stuff in life stops them from responding to tickets or addressing certain issues. This is a given. Open source projects are mostly staffed by

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> > The problem is: somebody needs to do the correct work to update each of those > ports to the latest version. In many cases, tickets are already filed, and > you can look them up to see what the current status is; if you don't find a > ticket, please file a new one. Couple of points

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/07, Ryan Schmidt wrote: It looks like others have already responded to most of your points, but I would just add: On Oct 6, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: But if I still cannot install (for example) pandoc because ghc still requires llwm-3.5 which does not compile on

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > >>> It pains me to say that Homebrew is running circles around MacPorts in >>> the department of current available packages. >> >> [citation needed] ;-) > > Gladly. I have written a small script to check that.

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > >>> Just today I commented on a ticket that is six weeks old, about an >>> update to nodejs4. Version 4.5.0 was released on 16-Aug-2016, version >>> 4.6.0 on 27-Sep-2016. Version 4 is considered the stable LTS

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/06, Daniel J. Luke wrote: [...] If installing software by hand results in more current and more secure software for my development machine, I don't get the point of using MacPorts in the first place. MacPorts provides a way to save the 'recipe' for installing software (and a handy

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On 16/10/06, Rainer Müller wrote: Hello Marcel, On 2016-10-06 19:12, Marcel Bischoff wrote: I was advised that I should ask my questions and raise my issues here. I'm currently considering dropping the use of MacPorts altogether as this projects' track record regarding critical updates of

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

It looks like others have already responded to most of your points, but I would just add: On Oct 6, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > But if I still > cannot install (for example) pandoc because ghc still requires llwm-3.5 > which does not compile on Sierra: what choice do I have? I

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

Hi Eric, thanks for the pointer. Good to hear that things are already in motion to make the switch. I'm looking over the messages exchanged in the last couple of weeks. Best, Marcel On 16/10/06, Eric A. Borisch wrote: Marcel, At least some of your concerns should be getting addressed with

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

Hello Marcel, On 2016-10-06 19:12, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > I was advised that I should ask my questions and raise my issues here. > > I'm currently considering dropping the use of MacPorts altogether as > this projects' track record regarding critical updates of major software > tools is rather

Re: Issues with oudated ports / GitHub

On Oct 6, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Marcel Bischoff wrote: > I'm currently considering dropping the use of MacPorts altogether ok. > as > this projects' track record regarding critical updates of major software > tools is rather underwhelming. Furthermore, I'm asking myself