What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Aryeh Friedman aryeh.friedman at gmail.com
Mon Jan 27 07:18:05 UTC 2014

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred at freebsd.org>wrote:

> On 1/26/14, 10:56 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred at freebsd.org>wrote:
>> I'm not sure, I'm going to go load up healthcare.gov to see if I can
>> order myself some free aspirin after this "discussion".
>  At least my build system has never caused me to need an aspirin (normal
> debugging is bad enough).  Sarcasm aside, to bring this thread back on
> track, the important issues are:
>    * The development model used by aegis is likely the cleanest
> development cycle I have seen (main reason for this is Peter Miller is one
> of the few SCM and build management theorists [vs. just hacking something
> til it works]).   The model is namely (repeat as needed)
> develop->test->review->integrate... note that test comes before review for
> the simple reason to even get to review you must build correctly and pass
> all your own tests (isn't this the main goal of automating the port system
> anyways)... also keep in mind we can use this model without necessarily
> switching to aegis per se.  With or without aegis, it would save the ports
> team a lot of time to be able to build and test a port automatically before
> they spend any time reviewing the code.  Aegis, by default, enforces this
> model.
>    * GitHub *REQUIRES* all developers (including all port maintainers --
> not just the committers) to switch to GitHub.  On the other hand, if the
> ports team were to use aegis and/or cook, this would NOT require any
> changes at all from the POV of maintainers.  Even on the ports team, most
> members would need to learn nothing more than 6 new basic commands...
> (portmgr@ would need to learn a lot more though depending on what kind of
> non-standard processing needs to be done in integration).
> Using git doesn't require switching to github.  I'm not sure what you're
> smoking that's leading you to believe that, maybe you should also try to
> log onto healthcare.gov to figure out what's causing your level of
> confusion!

Again not 100% correct. it does require you to have githup-like
functionality (githup or a clone of it) if you want to do any sort of
distributed repos... aegis does not (all of its distributions are in normal
formats like tar.gz and patches [these are automatically generated on
demand])... and more importantly your solution seems to revolve around
requiring the use of a tool over the model that it enforces (which can be
done by many different tools).... have you ever heard of making your
requirements technology neutral and *THEN* seeing what techs (if any) fit
the bill... this is how we found aegis in the first place...   in some
cases we may find (and I think the current port system may be one of these
cases) that no new tools are needed; all that is needed is the reorganizing
of existing manual procedures (which can then later be automated if

>    * If there are modifications to the overall port system, switching to
> aegis and/or cook would not require changes to individual ports like GitHub
> seems to
>> I skimmed the rest of your message and nothing really stuck out as
>> something worth perusing.  I guess I have to say is that I hope you enjoy
>> Agis so much that you and the 10 other people using it are able to
>> proselytize it to the success that git and github have had.  You certainly
>> seem passionate about it!
>  It would be nice if you could refrain from commenting on stuff you can't
> be bothered to "peruse."
> Likewise!

I at least took the time to check what GitHub could do and what it and what
it couldn't... this is just common sense when criticizing something

Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list