ports missing their packages.
ertr1013 at student.uu.se
Wed Oct 29 09:54:11 UTC 2008
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:02:14PM +0800, joeb wrote:
> How does kdenetwork-kopete-0.12.8 or php5-gd or pdflib fit into those
> reasons you gave?
> These all have ports but no package for many releases of Freebsd.
For print/pdflib it is legal restrictions. (The Makefile says
"RESTRICTED= many odd restrictions on usage and distribution")
As for graphics/php5-gd and net-im/kopete ports, they both seem to be available
as pre-built packages so I am not sure what problem you are having with them.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Trulsson [mailto:ertr1013 at student.uu.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:47 PM
> To: FBSD1
> Cc: freebsd-questions at FreeBSD. ORG; ports at FreeBSD.org
> Subject: Re: ports missing their packages.
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:09:23PM +0800, FBSD1 wrote:
> > It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for
> > real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the
> > source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted.
> > Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload to
> > package server. Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their
> > changes without creating the required package? This is just lax management
> > on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes. Missing
> > packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its
> > being mis-managed.
> It is not port managers who create or upload packages. Most of them do not
> even have access to the package server.
> The downloadable packages are built and uploaded automatically by a cluster
> of servers that do little else.
> If a particular port does not have a corresponding package it is generally
> not due to laxness on anybodys part.
> The main reasons why a port might not have corresponding package are:
> 1) The port has just been created and the package hasn't had time to built
> yet. Normally a very temporary situation.
> 2) Legal restrictions. There are several ports where it is simply not legal
> for the FreeBSD project to distribute the corresponding binary packages.
> 3) The port is currently broken and cannot be built. (This is of course a
> bug which should be fixed as soon as possible. For ports without a
> maintainer that might take a while.)
> 4) One or more of the dependencies of the package is not available as a
> package. (If port A depends on port B, and there does not exist a
> package for B (for any of the reasons listed here) there will not be
> a package of A either.
> > An alternate solution to this problem is to allow users to upload missing
> > packages to the package server direct or to a staging ftp server so
> > management staff can review first and them populate the production package
> > server.
> All the packages that can be built and distributed are already being built
> and uploaded. Allowing users to upload packages would not help.
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
ertr1013 at student.uu.se
More information about the freebsd-ports