Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2)
mexas at bris.ac.uk
Thu Nov 6 12:24:18 UTC 2014
I've been following this discussion with growing alarm.
A similarly elevated tone conversation led to dougb@
(the portmaster author) leaving the project a few years
back, when pkg was first introduced. I think the project
has lost as a result.
As a user, I see and appreciate the initiative and
strategic vision of some devs, but I also understand
the value of stability, incremental change and back-ported solutions.
Please let's find the way forward that does not alienate
too many people. I urge the developers advocating
significant changes not to dismiss user concerns.
poudriere is a good example. It is an excellent
tool that I on tier-2 systems.
However, it is wise that this, again excellent tool,
>Mixing packages and ports is *not* supported and never has been. This is
>another cause of unnecessary bug reports.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
I've systems where I install 99% of packages
from official repo servers, and then rebuild
1% from ports where the default options are
no good for me. Is this not supported?
Or do you mean something else?
>The only "tweaking" you should be doing is changing port build options,
>and they'll be available via (sub)packages according to the current
>roadmap. Only in rare circumstances should you need to manually build
sub-packages sounds like another big change.
So please give example of such circumstances.
More information about the freebsd-ports