ports missing their packages.

Peter Jeremy peterjeremy at optushome.com.au
Wed Oct 29 20:25:45 UTC 2008

On 2008-Oct-29 16:09:23 +0800, FBSD1 <fbsd1 at a1poweruser.com> wrote:
>It's my understanding that a port maintainer has to install the port for
>real any time a change is made to the port make files or a update to the
>source of the software to test and verify the changes work as wanted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "install the port for real".  A port
maintainer is responsible for updating his/her ports and verifying
that they work.  This presumably includes building and installing
the port.

>Creating the package after this is just one command and a ftp upload
>to the package server.

This isn't true for a whole variety of reasons.

> Why are maintainers being given approval to apply their
>changes without creating the required package?

Because packages aren't "required" and creation of packages is nothing
to do with ports maintainers.  

> This is just lax management
>on the part of the people who do the authorizing of the changes.

I suggest you do a bit more reading and a bit less pontificating.

> Missing
>packages increases user frustration level and makes FreeBSD look like its
>being mis-managed.

Not all ports have packages for a variety of reasons and there is no
requirement that every port has packages for every supported version
of FreeBSD.

Maybe you need to learn how to "cd /usr/ports/... && make install"

Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20081029/e83976a9/attachment.pgp

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list