FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!
magik at roorback.net
Sun Mar 6 18:37:29 UTC 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote:
>> I read last post Martin Wilke's blog called "FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!"
>> First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports.
>> I'm using testing release of VirtualBox,
>> but for build this port I must download patches,
>> apply its on my own tree and merge its with official ports
>> using portshaker.
>> It's possible to build testing ports outside tree,
>> but I must build every port separately, since `Make` don't known how to
>> track dependencies.
> There is always going to be some added work involved in testing. Have
> you considered using multiple trees, if you have sufficient disk
> space? Or using a version control system?
Multiple trees don't help me a lot, portmaster became fools.
There is no significant difference if I use version control system or
portshaker to merge trees.
>> Another possibility is replace ports in disk, but after upgrade tree eg.
>> with portsnap I lose my changes, and portmaster want to rebuild these
>> ports to stable release.
> It sounds like you are using the wrong tools. Although portsnap (which
> is not best suited for this purpose) has path arguments and an -l flag
> that can be used to add or preserve local changes, and both portmaster
> and portupgrade have options to ignore certain ports or to substitute
> alternative dependencies, you shouldn't have to make use of them.
> Instead, you should probably be using CVS (or another version control
> system that can import CVS), which will make merging and reverting
> changes easier. And naturally you shouldn't run updating tools until
> you've modified your tree.
But I won't resign from use updating tools, even when I use merged tree.
Because I use merged tree all the time.
>> If testing will be simpler, I think more people will do this.
>> Maybe we must create two trees, eg: ports-stable and ports-current
>> First we publish changes to current tree and after week or two without
>> pr, we publish updates to stable tree too.
> This has often been proposed, but since it would require more work
> from the already-overstretched committers, and the benefits are
> questionable, I don't think it is likely to happen soon.
>> Merging trees is another huge problem.
>> Portshaker do this very well, but after merge I must rebuild INDEX file,
>> which takes long time. This should be faster or even shouldn't be
>> required (hard to do).
> Do you really need to rebuild the INDEX? You can often avoid using
> it. If you do need to modify it, you can use some improved method,
> or modify it incrementally, with something like
> , or your own script.
I known that are many different ways to merge ports from different
sources, but none of them are simple and fast to use it for first time.
Look at last calls for testers:
There are only links to tarballs, without address to repository.
I must download tarballs, commit ports to my tree and merge it with
There is address for repository, but I still need merging trees
and rebuild index for portmaster.
I thing if testing ports will be simpler, more people can do this,
and want to do this. I proposed stable and current trees, but maybe
one official merge tool, which is easy to setup will be better, or
something completely different.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-ports