[RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering

[Aryeh M. Friedman]

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

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Monday, December 03, 2007 13:53:06 -0500 "Aryeh M. Friedman"
> <aryeh.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Have you ever attempted to install the individual ports of a mega
>>  metaport?
>>>
> Of course I have.  And I haven't run into any problems that weren't
>  solvable.

Try this as a challenge then install xdm cleanly on the first try
without having to install any additional ports from the command line
(what it drags in is fine)
>
>>> Before you waste any more time, why don't you get very specific
>>>  about what you think the "bad state" of the ports system is.
>>> "I don't like it" doesn't qualify nor does "ports freezes
>>> suck".
>>
>> I never asked or said any of those... the original thread was
>> started when I asked how long the port freeze would last...
>> others turned it into a referendum on the ports system... once
>> the thread had been transformed I ventured some of my own ideas.
>>>
> The "bad state" quote is directly from you.  Since you made the
> statement, I  simply asked for some concrete examples of what you
> think "bad state" means.  You used the term.  Surely you have some
> idea what you meant by it?
Bad state need not equal not fixable under the current system or it
may mean that... there is not enough evidence one way or the other to
support any public conclusion yet (I have my own see below)
>>
>> I have 4 ports awaiting inclusion in the ports tree after the
>> freeze is over (I am willing to wait but I think the fact that
>> there was a ports freeze in the first place points to some
>> underlaying flaws which I cited in the original thread)
>>>
> What would those flaws be?  You have a system that is entirely
> volunteer. Expecting the same performance that you get from a paid
> system is unrealistic.  Sometimes maintainers are very busy and
> can't commit changes as rapidly as others would like.  The
> solution?  Submit your own patches to the port and they will most
> likely get approved.  Sometimes committers are very busy and can't
> get to your port right away.  The solution?  Ask a different
> committer to take a look.  Or become a committer yourself.

Actually for the most part I find the all volunteer system works quiet
well but it does have some weaknesses that normal commercial
development does not have (see my blog for details) and ideal world
would be allowing money to be in the mix while keeping the source open.
>
> Short of hiring professionals to do this work on a fulltime basis,
> what would you propose that would improve the system?
>
> According to your sig you're a developer, so I'm certain you
> understand what library incompatibilities are.  Given that, how
> would you propose to not freeze ports while the base system is
> being prepared for release?

I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want
more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to
taint the survey any more then it needs to be.


- --
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

iD8DBQFHVFbw358R5LPuPvsRAiQvAJ9QuOpWtq0pQk7Ke2kjq6jLxeOOTgCcD9PP
Fvyoc7oDHuNq0kbcoDcsRb0=
=oIvz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----