Ports tree locked for 7.3

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is locked for the 7.3 release now.
No more commits.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked for the 7.2 release.
No more commits.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is locked now.

If you still have suggestions for important fixes, talk to sthen@
and me over the next few days.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is locked for 6.7 now.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked for 6.6 release

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked for the 6.6 release.  No more commits.

If something truly critical comes up, talk to sthen@ and me.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Ed Ahlsen-Girard]

> From:   Marc Espie 
> Date:   2019-04-06 13:24:35
> Message-ID: 20190406132435.GA7545 () lain ! home
> [Download RAW message or body]
> 
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:11:57AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> > You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
> > rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere
> > did I suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.
> 
> There's no rationale.
> 
> Just experimental results.
> 
> We did lots of tweaks to the release process over the years.
> 
> The current way is what causes the least amount of angst among
> developers.

"That which experiment has found, though theory had no part in,
Is always reckoned more than sound to put your mind and heart in."

Wolfgang Pauli as Faust in the Blegdamsvej Faust (performed at a Solvay
Conference), recorded by George Gamow in Thirty Years That Shook
Physics.

-- 

Edward Ahlsen-Girard
Ft Walton Beach, FL

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Marc Espie]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:11:57AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
> rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I
> suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.

There's no rationale.

Just experimental results.

We did lots of tweaks to the release process over the years.

The current way is what causes the least amount of angst among
developers.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Ian Darwin]

On 4/5/19 7:44 AM, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
Is this due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other 
reason (lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted 
by the project)?


This wording is one of several things that led to accusations of 
disrespect. If I said "Are you asking about our process due to your 
terrible reading skills, or because you're too lazy to look on the web 
site, or other reason (not having time to read web pages doesn't qualify 
as it seems self-inflicted by your choices)", would you be inclined to 
answer in a good mood?


That, and the fact that you actually did somehow fail to look on the 
website where there are multiple presentations on the topic, shows a 
disrespect for the developers' time, in having to take the time away 
from development to answer questions that are already answered and/or 
that are common practice in the field (these have both been pointed out 
by others in this thread).

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2019/04/05 06:44, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this due
> to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason (lack of
> manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the project)?

You seem to disagree a lot with the way that OpenBSD does things. A
way which, while not perfect, works reasonably well for many of us.

I suspect you'll be happier with some other OS - possibly a "rolling
release" Linux distribution (maybe Arch + community packages) - that is
more in keeping with what you're looking for as it's pretty clear that
the way we operate doesn't work for you.

> Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this unlocked so
> people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?

No we aren't. As I'm sure you're already aware we don't track them out
of lock either.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:44:36AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this due
> to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason (lack of
> manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the project)? Are
> you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this unlocked so
> people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?
> 
> While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt
> development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they may
> exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and confusing.

NetBSD freezes its pkgsrc tree before each of their quarterly releases.
FreeBSD used to have the same practice for their ports.

Debian Linux enters a period of freeze before a release.  As does
Ubuntu.  Fedora has three stages of "milestone freezing".

This is not an uncommon thing.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeze_(software_engineering)

Cheers,

> 
> > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:58:06 +0200
> > From: Christian Weisgerber 
> > To: ports@openbsd.org
> > Subject: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release
> > Message-ID: <20190404135806.gb29...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
> > 
> > The t2k19 hackathon has concluded and the ports tree is now locked
> > for the 6.5 release.  Important(!) fixes are still possible for a
> > brief period.  Committers need to ask sthen@ or me for approval.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de
> 
> 
> -- 
> Edward Lopez-Acosta

-- 
Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri,
National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (NBIS),
Uppsala University, Sweden.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Peter N. M. Hansteen]

Apr 05, 2019 at 07:20:49AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Do you have documentation on this process? I would be happy to read it and
> ask questions you feel may be better. As an open source project I am
> surprised about the lack of transparency for various things.

You will find several links to presentations about the OpenBSD development and
release process at the "Events and papers" page on the web site 
(http://www.openbsd.org/events.html).

For general orientation about the project and its goals, the FAQ at
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ is an excellent place to start.

- P

-- 
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Solene Rapenne]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:44:36AM -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this due
> to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason (lack of
> manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the project)? Are
> you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this unlocked so
> people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?
> 
> While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt
> development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they may
> exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and confusing.
> 
> > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:58:06 +0200
> > From: Christian Weisgerber 
> > To: ports@openbsd.org
> > Subject: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release
> > Message-ID: <20190404135806.gb29...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
> > 
> > The t2k19 hackathon has concluded and the ports tree is now locked
> > for the 6.5 release.  Important(!) fixes are still possible for a
> > brief period.  Committers need to ask sthen@ or me for approval.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de
> 
> 
> -- 
> Edward Lopez-Acosta
> 

People working on ports can still continue to work locally and will wait
the freeze to commit locally tested changes.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Theo de Raadt]

>Do you have documentation on this process? I would be happy to read it 
>and ask questions you feel may be better. As an open source project I am 
>surprised about the lack of transparency for various things.

Such strong words!

>I have opinions yes, but I also try to understand those of others which 
>is what prompted the questions. Not sure how asking questions to better 
>understand of a process/project is disrespectful if you could clarify 
>that would be great.

It is not your place.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Edward Lopez-Acosta]

Do you have documentation on this process? I would be happy to read it 
and ask questions you feel may be better. As an open source project I am 
surprised about the lack of transparency for various things.


I have opinions yes, but I also try to understand those of others which 
is what prompted the questions. Not sure how asking questions to better 
understand of a process/project is disrespectful if you could clarify 
that would be great.


Edward Lopez-Acosta

On 4/5/19 7:17 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:

You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I
suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.

And how do you define crappier releases? If something is stable enough
that the development team decide to mark a release that is up to them,
not you which is similar to what you noted about this being *your*
process, that is *theirs*.


Wow you sure are opinionated.

We as a team make releases every 6 months like clockwork.

Anything else is none of your business.  Your line of commentary is
showing a distinct lack of respect, and I kindly propose you get
stuffed.


Edward Lopez-Acosta

On 4/5/19 7:08 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:

Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this
due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason
(lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the
project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this
unlocked so people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?


Our process.  *OUR* process.  This is not your process.  Meaning it
isn't your decision.


While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt
development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they
may exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and
confusing.


Other projects split their developers between "making the release" and
"working on the future", and as a result they take a long time to make
crappier releases.

That's their choice.

It is not our choice.

It is *NOT YOUR CHOICE*, and you don't have standing to comment.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Theo de Raadt]

>You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the 
>rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I 
>suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.
>
>And how do you define crappier releases? If something is stable enough 
>that the development team decide to mark a release that is up to them, 
>not you which is similar to what you noted about this being *your* 
>process, that is *theirs*.

Wow you sure are opinionated.

We as a team make releases every 6 months like clockwork.

Anything else is none of your business.  Your line of commentary is
showing a distinct lack of respect, and I kindly propose you get
stuffed.

>Edward Lopez-Acosta
>
>On 4/5/19 7:08 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this
>>> due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason
>>> (lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the
>>> project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this
>>> unlocked so people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?
>> 
>> Our process.  *OUR* process.  This is not your process.  Meaning it
>> isn't your decision.
>> 
>>> While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt
>>> development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they
>>> may exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and
>>> confusing.
>> 
>> Other projects split their developers between "making the release" and
>> "working on the future", and as a result they take a long time to make
>> crappier releases.
>> 
>> That's their choice.
>> 
>> It is not our choice.
>> 
>> It is *NOT YOUR CHOICE*, and you don't have standing to comment.
>> 
>

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Edward Lopez-Acosta]

You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the 
rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I 
suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.


And how do you define crappier releases? If something is stable enough 
that the development team decide to mark a release that is up to them, 
not you which is similar to what you noted about this being *your* 
process, that is *theirs*.


Edward Lopez-Acosta

On 4/5/19 7:08 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:

Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this
due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason
(lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the
project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this
unlocked so people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?


Our process.  *OUR* process.  This is not your process.  Meaning it
isn't your decision.


While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt
development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they
may exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and
confusing.


Other projects split their developers between "making the release" and
"working on the future", and as a result they take a long time to make
crappier releases.

That's their choice.

It is not our choice.

It is *NOT YOUR CHOICE*, and you don't have standing to comment.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Theo de Raadt]

>Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this 
>due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason 
>(lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the 
>project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this 
>unlocked so people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?

Our process.  *OUR* process.  This is not your process.  Meaning it
isn't your decision.

>While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt 
>development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they 
>may exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and 
>confusing.

Other projects split their developers between "making the release" and
"working on the future", and as a result they take a long time to make
crappier releases.

That's their choice.

It is not our choice.

It is *NOT YOUR CHOICE*, and you don't have standing to comment.

Re: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Edward Lopez-Acosta]

Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this 
due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason 
(lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the 
project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this 
unlocked so people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?


While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt 
development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they 
may exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and 
confusing.



Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:58:06 +0200
From: Christian Weisgerber 
To: ports@openbsd.org
Subject: Ports tree locked for 6.5 release
Message-ID: <20190404135806.gb29...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>

The t2k19 hackathon has concluded and the ports tree is now locked
for the 6.5 release.  Important(!) fixes are still possible for a
brief period.  Committers need to ask sthen@ or me for approval.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de



--
Edward Lopez-Acosta

Ports tree locked for 6.5 release

[Christian Weisgerber]

The t2k19 hackathon has concluded and the ports tree is now locked
for the 6.5 release.  Important(!) fixes are still possible for a
brief period.  Committers need to ask sthen@ or me for approval.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Re: Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2018-03-25, Christian Weisgerber  wrote:

> The ports tree is now locked for the 6.3 release.

... and unlocked again.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked for the 6.3 release.

We still want to get in the latest Mozilla point releases.  If
anything else really important pops up, talk to sthen and me.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked for 5.9

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked for the release.

We may still trickle in a few important diffs, but talk to sthen@
and me first.  No unapproved commits!

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked for 5.8

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is locked now for the 5.8 release.

-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked for 5.6

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked for 5.6.

No more commits.  If something supercritical turns up, talk to me.

-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Lars Engblom]

Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are.  As you wrote, there 
are even known workarounds.

That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already reported 
should be understandable. 

Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for 
workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the workarounds 
be enabled by default then? 

I would not consider myself to be whiny in this case as I long time ago noticed 
the reports and been patiently been waiting without whining hoping the problem 
would get a solution. Also it is not for own benefit i am complaining. I'm 
managing well (and I do not even run stable at home). 

 Original message 
From: Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net 
Date: 22/07/2013  08:49  (GMT+02:00) 
To: ports@openbsd.org 
Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED 
 
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
 I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have
 been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this
 is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did
 not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew
 already.
 
 What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was
 more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to
 get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes
 should be allowed.
 
 This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is
 using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the
 latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get
 horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so
 also a bit more intensive java scripts.
 
 I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is
 not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more
 concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets
 released in this shape.
 
 I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am
 unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what
 anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case.

You just need to use common sense.

- try with a fresh empty profile
- try to reset your regular profile (see about:support)
- collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream  cc me
- gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try
  the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config
gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled,
MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=136560946723949w=2)

Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i
dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with
heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides
that it's totally usable.

 I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF
 has been since the spring.

Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4.

Landry

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Stuart Henderson]

[quoting reformatted. there are times when top-posting makes sense but
this is not one of them]

  Original message 
 From: Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net 
 - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try
   the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config
 gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled,
 MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see
 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=136560946723949w=2)

On 2013/07/22 10:01, Lars Engblom wrote:
 Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are.  As you
 wrote, there are even known workarounds.

This is not for crashes, it's for slow behaviour processing images
(especially browser-scaled images).

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Lars Engblom]

[Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not 
top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach any 
computer with decent client at the moment]

Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old equipment with 
little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this slowing down before it 
crashes. 

 Original message 
From: Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org 
Date: 22/07/2013  10:20  (GMT+02:00) 
To: Lars Engblom lars.engb...@kimitotelefon.fi 
Cc: Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net,ports@openbsd.org 
Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED 
 
[quoting reformatted. there are times when top-posting makes sense but
this is not one of them]

  Original message 
 From: Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net 
 - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try
   the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config
 gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled,
 MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see
 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=136560946723949w=2)

On 2013/07/22 10:01, Lars Engblom wrote:
 Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are.  As you
 wrote, there are even known workarounds.

This is not for crashes, it's for slow behaviour processing images
(especially browser-scaled images).

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Peter Hessler]

On 2013 Jul 22 (Mon) at 07:56:31 +0300 (+0300), Lars Engblom wrote:
:I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have
:been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this

irc is not a place to report bugs.  The only place where you could expect
developers to view them is on the mailing lists.  bugs@ or misc@ for
system stuff, ports@ for ports bugs. http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html has
all of the details of what the mailing lists are.
 http://www.openbsd.org/report.html has the info on how to report a bug.

-- 
Mathematicians do it in theory.

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2013/07/22 10:32, Lars Engblom wrote:
 [Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not
 top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach
 any computer with decent client at the moment]
 
 Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old
 equipment with little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this
 slowing down before it crashes. 

That sounds different, maybe something like you could be running out
of physical RAM and going into swap, and then perhaps running into
login.conf datasize limits. A full report including console output
might help clarify that. Watching top(1) while it runs into problems
might be interesting too.

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Marc Espie]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:32:06AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
 [Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not 
 top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach any 
 computer with decent client at the moment]
 
 Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old equipment 
 with little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this slowing down 
 before it crashes. 

I'm pretty sure there was some fuck-up with the excessive storage of
server-side (X server) images that has since been  fixed.

You've got to realize, a huge pile of poo like firefox + the X server +
the modern web   needs some proper diapers.

Or, more accurately, something resembling a bug-report. That would probably
include:
- firefox snapshot used
- x driver used (and probably x snapshot)
- reproducible starting with empty profile
- what sites were open at the time.

without that, it's mostly worthless.   There are enough complex pieces in
there that you will always always chase a rabbit.  Heck, you can grab proper
equipment, or keep wadling around with a peashooter.


And now, you're talking about old equipment. Well, guess what ? Other OSes
don't care about old equipment. I'm not even sure a recent linux distro
will run on 1GB of ram, not comfortably anyways.

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Landry Breuil]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:32:06AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
 [Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not 
 top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach any 
 computer with decent client at the moment]
 
 Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old equipment 
 with little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this slowing down 
 before it crashes. 

I'm using ffx on an i386 atom N270 w/ 1gb ram and on a macmini g4 w/ 1gb
ram, and it's usable there. It was still usable on my i386 xp 1800+ from
2003 6 months ago.

Landry

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Landry Breuil]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
 Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are.  As you wrote, there 
 are even known workarounds.

We're talking about different issues here. And as marc stated, no
trace/proper report/homework - the bug doesnt exist.

 That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already reported 
 should be understandable. 
 
 Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for 
 workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the 
 workarounds be enabled by default then? 

Because the workarounds improve things in some situations, and break
things on previously working configuration. That's why they're called
'workarounds'. Do you want to be the one responsible for breaking 95% of
the working configurations, when trying to fix the few broken setups ?
Not me.

Landry

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Kenneth R Westerback]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
 Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. ??As you wrote, there 
 are even known workarounds.

There are steps to diagnose YOUR problem and things to try that work for OTHER
PEOPLE. Who knows what your problems are until you tell us. Even if it is
the identical problem, your problem report could have that single new bit
of information that reveals all.

 
 That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already reported 
 should be understandable.??
 

Nope.

 Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for 
 workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the 
 workarounds be enabled by default then???

Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't
know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to
RTFML.

 Ken

 
 I would not consider myself to be whiny in this case as I long time ago 
 noticed the reports and been patiently been waiting without whining hoping 
 the problem would get a solution. Also it is not for own benefit i am 
 complaining. I'm managing well (and I do not even run stable at home).??
 
  Original message 
 From: Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net 
 Date: 22/07/2013  08:49  (GMT+02:00) 
 To: ports@openbsd.org 
 Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED 
  
 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
  I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have
  been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this
  is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did
  not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew
  already.
  
  What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was
  more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to
  get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes
  should be allowed.
  
  This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is
  using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the
  latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get
  horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so
  also a bit more intensive java scripts.
  
  I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is
  not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more
  concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets
  released in this shape.
  
  I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am
  unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what
  anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case.
 
 You just need to use common sense.
 
 - try with a fresh empty profile
 - try to reset your regular profile (see about:support)
 - collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream  cc me
 - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try
 ?? the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config
 gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled,
 MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see
 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=136560946723949w=2)
 
 Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i
 dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with
 heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides
 that it's totally usable.
 
  I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF
  has been since the spring.
 
 Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4.
 
 Landry
 

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[patrick keshishian]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Kenneth R Westerback
kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
 Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. ??As you wrote, 
 there are even known workarounds.

 There are steps to diagnose YOUR problem and things to try that work for OTHER
 PEOPLE. Who knows what your problems are until you tell us. Even if it is
 the identical problem, your problem report could have that single new bit
 of information that reveals all.


 That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already 
 reported should be understandable.??


 Nope.

 Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for 
 workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the 
 workarounds be enabled by default then???

 Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't
 know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to
 RTFML.

Since you bring it up... /or/ when a problem gets reported, even with
great detail, it goes ignored.

it's a crapshoot.

at least be honest about the reality of things.

--patrick



  Ken


 I would not consider myself to be whiny in this case as I long time ago 
 noticed the reports and been patiently been waiting without whining hoping 
 the problem would get a solution. Also it is not for own benefit i am 
 complaining. I'm managing well (and I do not even run stable at home).??

  Original message 
 From: Landry Breuil lan...@rhaalovely.net
 Date: 22/07/2013  08:49  (GMT+02:00)
 To: ports@openbsd.org
 Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
  I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have
  been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this
  is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did
  not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew
  already.
 
  What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was
  more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to
  get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes
  should be allowed.
 
  This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is
  using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the
  latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get
  horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so
  also a bit more intensive java scripts.
 
  I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is
  not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more
  concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets
  released in this shape.
 
  I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am
  unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what
  anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case.

 You just need to use common sense.

 - try with a fresh empty profile
 - try to reset your regular profile (see about:support)
 - collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream  cc me
 - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try
 ?? the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config
 gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled,
 MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see
 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=136560946723949w=2)

 Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i
 dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with
 heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides
 that it's totally usable.

  I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF
  has been since the spring.

 Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4.

 Landry

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Marc Espie]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:24:47AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
  Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't
  know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to
  RTFML.
 
 Since you bring it up... /or/ when a problem gets reported, even with
 great detail, it goes ignored.
 
 it's a crapshoot.
 
 at least be honest about the reality of things.

that's definitely not true.  Problems don't necessarily get discussed
further on public mailing-lists, but they're definitely noticed, and looked
at.

Some problems don't get solved, or don't get solved instantly. There are
not that many openbsd developers, and so much crappy software to port out
there.

but problems don't get ignored.

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Theo de Raadt]

 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Kenneth R Westerback
 kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
  On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
  Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. ??As you wrote, 
  there are even known workarounds.
 
  There are steps to diagnose YOUR problem and things to try that work for 
  OTHER
  PEOPLE. Who knows what your problems are until you tell us. Even if it is
  the identical problem, your problem report could have that single new bit
  of information that reveals all.
 
 
  That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already 
  reported should be understandable.??
 
 
  Nope.
 
  Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for 
  workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the 
  workarounds be enabled by default then???
 
  Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't
  know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to
  RTFML.
 
 Since you bring it up... /or/ when a problem gets reported, even with
 great detail, it goes ignored.
 
 it's a crapshoot.
 
 at least be honest about the reality of things.

YES, let's be honest about the reality of things.

Please go away and run a system that *does not ignore problems*

Grass greener on the other side, right?

Ports tree LOCKED

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now LOCKED for the 5.4 release.

-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Lars Engblom]

Something seriously needs to be done to Firefox before 5.4 release. It 
has been really buggy the latest months. It is almost completely 
unusable. It dumps core daily for me. Pictures are often distorted.


Like it is now, if anyone new to OpenBSD would try it, they would never 
return as they would consider it as a way to buggy system (especially as 
the ports do not even get upgrades for 6 months if you follow the 
stable). I hope whoever works on Firefox will be allowed to do whatever 
he/she needs to do in order to get a stable version.


I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF 
has been since the spring.


On 07/21/13 23:34, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

The ports tree is now LOCKED for the 5.4 release.

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Brian Callahan]

On 7/22/2013 12:27 AM, Lars Engblom wrote:

Something seriously needs to be done to Firefox before 5.4 release. It
has been really buggy the latest months. It is almost completely
unusable. It dumps core daily for me. Pictures are often distorted.



Stellar bug report.


Like it is now, if anyone new to OpenBSD would try it, they would never
return as they would consider it as a way to buggy system (especially as
the ports do not even get upgrades for 6 months if you follow the
stable). I hope whoever works on Firefox will be allowed to do whatever
he/she needs to do in order to get a stable version.



Really? I use Firefox everyday on -current and don't run into problems.


I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF
has been since the spring.



And you waited until now to complain about it? Where's your email when 
you first ran into problems? Here's MARC's list of all the emails you've 
sent under this email address:

http://marc.info/?a=13003457046r=1w=2

Where's the fucking bug report? What were you waiting for?

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Lars Engblom]

I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have been 
here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this is 
something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did not want 
to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew already.


What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was more 
raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to get it 
stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes should be allowed.


This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is 
using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the latest 
cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get horizontal 
stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so also a bit more 
intensive java scripts.


I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is not 
that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more concerned 
about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets released in this shape.


I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am unable 
of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what anyone wants 
me to do in order to help in this case.



On 07/22/13 07:41, Brian Callahan wrote:

On 7/22/2013 12:27 AM, Lars Engblom wrote:

Something seriously needs to be done to Firefox before 5.4 release. It
has been really buggy the latest months. It is almost completely
unusable. It dumps core daily for me. Pictures are often distorted.



Stellar bug report.


Like it is now, if anyone new to OpenBSD would try it, they would never
return as they would consider it as a way to buggy system (especially as
the ports do not even get upgrades for 6 months if you follow the
stable). I hope whoever works on Firefox will be allowed to do whatever
he/she needs to do in order to get a stable version.



Really? I use Firefox everyday on -current and don't run into problems.


I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF
has been since the spring.



And you waited until now to complain about it? Where's your email when 
you first ran into problems? Here's MARC's list of all the emails 
you've sent under this email address:

http://marc.info/?a=13003457046r=1w=2

Where's the fucking bug report? What were you waiting for?

Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED

[Landry Breuil]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
 I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have
 been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this
 is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did
 not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew
 already.
 
 What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was
 more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to
 get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes
 should be allowed.
 
 This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is
 using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the
 latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get
 horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so
 also a bit more intensive java scripts.
 
 I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is
 not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more
 concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets
 released in this shape.
 
 I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am
 unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what
 anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case.

You just need to use common sense.

- try with a fresh empty profile
- try to reset your regular profile (see about:support)
- collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream  cc me
- gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try
  the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config
gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled,
MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=136560946723949w=2)

Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i
dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with
heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides
that it's totally usable.

 I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF
 has been since the spring.

Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4.

Landry

Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is locked now.
Barring catastrophic failures, there will be no more changes for the
release.

I'm going to sync INDEX tomorrow.

-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked in preparation for the 4.6 release.
There will be no ports commits for the duration of the lock.

-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Ports tree locked for 4.5

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked for 4.5.  No more commits.

If there is anything critical, talk to me.
(Critical as in omg, hundreds of ports are broken, not as in
there's a bug in Joe Random port.)

I'll kick off a test build to find and fix any straggling plist
issues and the like, which may have been introduced during the last
week.

-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Re: ports tree locked

[Miod Vallat]

  What's happening with m68k? No snapshot package update since 4.3.
 
  Are they halted until the linker/binutil issue is resolved? Is that
  likely to be fixed in 4.4? (Is that issue just mac68k?)
 
 Probably going to miss 4.4.

Well, systems (including xenocara) will be built for 4.4, but is
unlikely there will be many packages, if at all.

Miod

Re: ports tree locked

[Peter Valchev]

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Hugo Villeneuve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 08:27:44PM -0700, Peter Valchev wrote:
 With the python fixes just making it in, the tree is now locked for
 the 4.4 release. Thanks to everyone who tested!


 What's happening with m68k? No snapshot package update since 4.3.

 Are they halted until the linker/binutil issue is resolved? Is that
 likely to be fixed in 4.4? (Is that issue just mac68k?)

Probably going to miss 4.4.

ports tree locked

[Peter Valchev]

With the python fixes just making it in, the tree is now locked for
the 4.4 release. Thanks to everyone who tested!

Ports tree locked

[Christian Weisgerber]

The ports tree is now locked for the upcoming 4.3 release.
Please hold off on submitting new ports and regular updates.

-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

is the ports tree locked?

[Sam Fourman Jr.]

I have noticed that http://ports.openbsd.nu/ has not updated ports in
about 2 weeks,


I was wondering if this was normal for OpenBSD


Sam Fourman Jr.

Re: is the ports tree locked?

[Nico Meijer]

Hi Sam,

 I was wondering if this was normal for OpenBSD

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-portsm=115704857123813w=2

Very, very normal... Nico

P.S. Do test!

ports tree locked

[Peter Valchev]

The ports tree is now locked.  What that means is that you should be
very careful with the changes you propose and everything should be
approved by me.  However, you must discuss it with the usual suspects
and other developers as well.

Accept that we will ship with some bugs, but focus on fixing the
simple problems and what can be fixed reasonably.  Only look at
important issues and do not think I'll throw this update in, it
looks good and I'm sure it won't hurt anything because now is
the wrong time to do this.

Focus on testing the package snapshots!  The main reason we do this
whole locking process is because the ports tree is so large and it
takes a long time to build.  Noticing problems can take a while
and we need time to address them, so help out!