hmp wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:28:19 +0100: > Well, to be honest with you Jon, I certainly haven't tried sending "compat > patches" to Kris or any of the senior ports people so I am not going to > judge on that basis. If someone has tried this and got denied, please > speak up; this is a tangent by the way. :-)
I once submitted patch to bsd.port.mk. Even though it needed some persistence it was committed: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=72182 > The average guy who wants to get a system up and running from a Live-CD > and then install things like GUI, editors, will not really care about > source level "broohah" at all. The average guy installing a system intended to be SSI cluster ? That we happen to run it as our desktop marks us hardly as average guys. Think you have a wrong impression of the cummunity there. They are all perverts running ion/*box/xfce4/9wm etc. if they run that stupid GUI stuff at all (thx to Sascha's syscons enhancements). > Lets be honest with ourselves, most of us do not bother with source level > building of packages that are available in binary form. If I really did > not trust an application, I would build from source, but this does not > describe 90% of the people out there. I know many ppl that will _only_ install via source. Maybe those 90% you are talking about don't run DragonFly in the first place? > >>Can we not use ports or pkgsrc as our build part of the problem, and > >>produce packages that are understandable by APT* ? I am not at all convinced that some other backend solves the problem. But making ports/pkgsrc produce other binary pkg types would be cool. > Custom built packages SHOULD NOT be registered with the rest because this > will definitely not help while upgrading or during maintenance. They > marked as custom built and left alone, if necessary otherwise the chance > of screwing up the system just increased. That can be done with pkgtools.conf btw. > Source level upgrades have always created some form of problem for me and > it seems a lot of other people as well. Definitely not something that is > viable or trust-worthy. No it's something you do on a special build host until you produce a quality of packages you are satisfied with. Then you distribute those packages to your other hosts. That is certainly power i am not willing to give up. > To summarise, at this point in time, I do not really give a crap for > building applications from source when a perfectly working binary package > is being offered. It should be the responsibility of the package builders > to take care of source building for us, not the end user. Period. It doubt there will be 10000 "perfectly working binary" packages. Imagine you want to support 2 compilers then you need 2 * 10000 packages. Imagine that you also want to support 2 libc versions that makes 4 * 10000. Formula: 2^Number_of_exclusive_options * 10000 And Clusters are something you want to tune anyways. Andy
