[RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering

David Southwell david at vizion2000.net
Mon Dec 3 14:47:06 PST 2007

On Monday 03 December 2007 13:19:58 Chuck Robey wrote:
> Paul Schmehl wrote:
> > Here's a hint that would help a *ton* of users.  Don't try to install a
> > port until your ports tree is up to date.  Completely up to date - as
> > is, run portsnap or cvs or cvsup *first*, *then* try to install your
> > port.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > This is the part I don't get.  If you have suggestions, post them.  Post
> > the code that implements your suggestions.  *Then* people can evaluate
> > whether or not your suggestions add value to the ports system.
> >
> > Why the silly games?  As I read them, this seems to be the primary
> > objection of all the people responding who have @freebsd.org in their
> > email address.  They've heard it all before, but they know that actions
> > speak much louder than words.  If you say "the implementation of foo is
> > flawed", and then you post code that, IYO, improves it, people with
> > experience and knowledge can review it and say, "Hey, nice idea" or
> > "sorry, your code would break ports and here's why".
> >
> > Without the code, all the surveys and gesticulations in this tread
> > accomplish little except to irritate people.
> Why the silly games?  I get the feeling that Aryeh is honestly not
> understanding that he's trying to change the basic way that things get
> done in FreeBSD. 

Has it occured to you that maybe that is the gray area - maybe it is the 
arrogance talking -- "this is how things are done" -- "we are the 
guardians".. "we know it all".. that leads to a few things NOT working as 
well as they might!!

> He doesn't see that.  
M<aybe that is an asset rather than a liability!
> In industry, first a decision is  
> made that a market exists for such and such, then a study is made as to
> what could be done realistically.  We don't operate that way.
> What we're all afraid of, Aryeh, is that you're going to run off with
> your poll of what you believe is needed (when we haven't even agreed
> that anything is needed) and you'll code something up, under the
> completely wrong misapprehension that if you code something up that does
> what the poll results said, it would get added in, pal, that's totally,
> totally false, you can ask any committer whatever, you will never get
> any apriori agreement on the adding of code, no matter what, until we
> can see the code.  This has been endlessly argued in the past, and folks
> have certainly left FreeBSD over it, but it will not change.

Maybe it neeeds to.
> If you can't see that, then we will remain at loggerheads.  If you can
> see that, then quit asking folks to agree on stuff without showing us
> code.  I don't care how much research you do on what is needed, you will
> never change that fact, all you're going to do is trigger knee-jerk
> reactions from folks who have been *very highly* sensitized by prior
> attempts to change that rule.  It's not gonna happen, and you strongly
> seem to be trying an end-run around it.  If you honestly aren't, then
> you need to do a better job of convincing folks of that fact.
> That's what it all boils down to, anyone disagree, at base?


And strong disagreement is really needed around here and I am speaking as a 
freebsd user since 1994
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list