duration of the ports freeze

Aryeh M. Friedman aryeh.friedman at gmail.com
Sat Dec 1 14:52:10 PST 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Southwell wrote:
> On Saturday 01 December 2007 11:54:40 Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, David Southwell wrote:
>>> On Saturday 01 December 2007 10:28:40 Erik Trulsson wrote:
>>>> Personally, as a user, I have never really been even slightly
>>>>  inconvienced by any of the ports tree freezes.
>>> All I can say is bully for you! The question is how do we get
>>> rid of a p[roblem even if it is not a disadvantage for you
>>> personally. It is disappointing when one hears arguments not to
>>> change simply because one particular individual is not
>>> disadvantaged by a currently illogical and antiquated solution
>>> to a problem that will inevitably grow as the number of ports
>>> increase.
>>>
>>> We need to grasp the nettle while we may!!
>> I think that you and Aryeh are not getting that it is not just
>> "bully for you."  There is a major effort required to change the
>> way we do ports. Even if the current system has some
>> imperfections, you have to persuade the FreeBSD community that
>> the benfits of fixing things are greater than the costs.
>>
>> My personal assessment is that now is NOT the time to grap the
>> nettle. Over time the ports system will acquire more and more
>> problems, until perhaps in ten or twenty years time it will be
>> unusable.  Then it will be time to fix it, when we have a clearer
>> picture of what all the problems really are.  Or maybe by then
>> things will have happened that make this whole issue moot.  I
>> just don't think it is worth the effort to fix this problem now,
>> especially when the benefits will only be to a few power users.
> Just who does not get it!! This reminds me of  the presidential
> "there is no such thing as global warming" response to climate
> change debate. Wait for twenty years until events force us to fix
> it and then we will do something.
>> Look, its good that you feel the freedom to complain, and
>> advocate for change.  But don't get upset when others say they
>> like the status quo.  They need to have freedom to say their
>> piece too.
> The issue is about responsibility. Clearly the price of status quo
> is at minimum inconvenience for many and at worst unacceptable
> interference for an undefined number. What is wrong with trying to
> fix it now? Those who advocate change are not trying to get a fix
> it to make life worse for anyone. There is nothing wrong with
> change!!
>

I am willing to put my code where my mouth is if we can get a good
percentage of ports into a new system to test the two side by side
(say the entire xorg meta port)... note to the skeptics out there this
is not meant to replace ports just be a proof of concept for a
possible replacement.


- --
Aryeh M. Friedman
FloSoft Systems
Developer, not business, friendly
http://www.flosoft-systems.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHUeWU358R5LPuPvsRAntEAJ9l/uY3QGNaPbSAbV77uY+Il0ETxQCgrS53
E9rNq/iviTAJ2SmuI/QKmnY=
=wZf9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list