Ability for maintainers to update own ports

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Tue Nov 11 11:27:43 PST 2003

Fernan Aguero wrote:

> On the other side, there are many ports that are just
> applications: no other port depends on them, and there is
> little risk if the port is not perfect. In my particular
> case I'm thinking in the biology stuff, because that's my
> main interest. I guess that only a minority of the FreeBSD
> user base would ever install one of those ports. And for
> those that do, what is the potential impact of doing a
> less-than-perfect port? Breaking hier(7)? In this case, 
> the consequences of bad porting practices would impact the
> port itself. 

I can't stress enough how many problems I had with the wrong
PKGORIGINs (PR 58268) of a few ports in my portconflicts tool.
I had to write a special subroutine looking up these ports in
a list.

If you want to work with tools on the ports tree (like building
the INDEX, conflicts checking etc.) they have to adhere to
more rules than just compiling and installing. Thats the reason
for most of my PRs: Some ports break tools I'm workin on.

I still favour the idea of pkgsrc-wip: it is a great place to
try new things, a place for people that are not happy with the
ports tree as it is now (which I can fully understand) and
should be easy to integrate into the existing FreeBSD ports tree.

Heck, I mentioned that thing so often, I should start the project


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list