Ability for maintainers to update own ports
eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Mon Nov 10 14:16:59 PST 2003
Charles Swiger wrote:
> With regard to the origin of this thread, it might be useful to
> understand what the actual scope of the problem is: how long does it
> take, on average, for a new port submission to be committed? My limited
> experience suggests an interval between one week for a "highly
> interesting" port (dvd+rw-tools, in my case) to three or four months for
> other ports, but real data pulled out of the bug database would be more
> reliable than personal impressions.
> It might also be useful to set realistic targets for response times and
> mention them in the Porter's Handbook, so that people who submit ports
> know what to expect in terms of a timeframe. I'd really like to be able
> to suggest something like "you should have a committer review your
> submission within one month" and have that be doable, but I can't say
> whether that (or any particular fixed interval) would be practical.
I'm not exactly sure that this is the only topic of this thread.
Perhaps there are two:
- the wish for a faster moving ports tree
- and the wish for more QA in the PR database, i.e. documented procedures
how and in which timeframe a PR is handled.
The first can be satisfied with something like pkgsrc-wip, and I always
wondered why we don't have a ports-FRESH and ports-TESTED, like we have
-CURRENT and -STABLE.
That should be also a great way to try new forms of organization and
submission handling, and I'm positive if something turns out to work
well the FreeBSD people will consider to adopt it.
And maybe this hints how to handle the second topic...
More information about the freebsd-ports