FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!
bf1783 at googlemail.com
Sun Mar 6 21:01:37 UTC 2011
On 3/6/11, Grzegorz Blach <magik at roorback.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote:
>>> First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports.
> Multiple trees don't help me a lot, portmaster became fools.
> There is no significant difference if I use version control system or
> portshaker to merge trees.
I'm not so sure. But in any event, maybe you can elaborate on what
you mean by portmaster becoming a "fool"?
>>> Another possibility is replace ports in disk, but after upgrade tree eg.
>>> with portsnap I lose my changes, and portmaster want to rebuild these
>>> ports to stable release.
>> system that can import CVS), which will make merging and reverting
>> changes easier. And naturally you shouldn't run updating tools until
>> you've modified your tree.
> But I won't resign from use updating tools, even when I use merged tree.
> Because I use merged tree all the time.
No one is asking you to. But obviously you'll have to use the tools
at the right time, and in the right manner, if you are going to be
experimenting with different sets of ports. It doesn't sound as if
you are doing that now, based on your reports. If you really want to
use portmaster, and you don't want to be troubled with rebuilding the
index, then maybe you could ask the portmaster maintainer to implement
an option that ignores the index, and relies solely on the ports tree,
if there isn't such an option already. Or examine the various
incremental update methods I cited earlier.
> I known that are many different ways to merge ports from different
> sources, but none of them are simple and fast to use it for first time.
> Look at last calls for testers:
> There are only links to tarballs, without address to repository.
> I must download tarballs, commit ports to my tree and merge it with
> official ports.
> Another CFT:
> There is address for repository, but I still need merging trees
> and rebuild index for portmaster.
> I thing if testing ports will be simpler, more people can do this,
> and want to do this. I proposed stable and current trees, but maybe
> one official merge tool, which is easy to setup will be better, or
> something completely different.
Okay, so we could make a webpage that contains some recommendations
and instructions for those interested in testing. And we could make a
central repository using a version control system that has efficient
branching, where committers could be asked to add major changes in
separate branches, so that it would be easier to test them. (I'm not
saying one unstable branch, because I think it would be difficult to
isolate and solve problems when mixing lots of different changesets.)
Those are reasonable suggestions. But of course, these suggestions
would require more work from committers, and won't make testing
completely painless. They would be roughly equivalent to the case you
mention above, where there was a repository -- yet you still seemed
reluctant to test in that case.
More information about the freebsd-ports