Unifying WWW: pkg-descr lines for cpan ports
erwin at FreeBSD.org
Sun Sep 11 02:06:50 PDT 2005
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:53:30PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 04:14:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > I respectfully disagree with Erwin, given that this change (at least the
> > first group) won't alter how anything works, I think it should be done
> > ASAP.
> My personal interpretation of the "sweeping changes" rule is that it is
> primarily designed to keep the current ports dependency tree as close as
> lock-step to the packages that have already been built to go on the CDs.
> So, if a tag has to slip on port X, we don't also have to slip tags on N
> different dependent ports -- or, in the degenerate case, re-freeze the
> tree and rebuild all the packages. (I hope everyone can agree that we do
> not want to do that!)
> As well, things that change shared library revisions or meta-things
> like KDE/GNOME/X are kept the same for similar reasons.
> So under this interpretation, I would agree with Doug that this change
> would be ok.
> Any of the other portmgr members have an opinion?
I guess we need a clearer definition of what a "sweeping" change is.
Under a strict definition, which I applied here, anything touching more
than a few ports should wait. However, with the number of freezes and
thus slushes we have right now due to the number of releases per year, I
think we should be more lax than that and allow non-functional changes
to go in, like pkg-descr and maintainer changes. The downside of this,
is that such a fuzzy definition will get misinterpreted, with all the
consequenses and discussions afterwards.
No electrons were harmed while sending this message.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20050911/dd2b12e3/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-ports