Russell L. Carter rcarter at
Mon Jan 12 04:50:56 UTC 2015

On 01/11/15 21:01, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 03:54:39PM -0800, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> "time for it to go", by whose definition?  Good code doesn't have a
>> fixed lifespan and the claimed rationale doesn't constitute a good
>> business case.
> It was believed to be a bad design pattern to let ports modify anything
> in base.  There had been a few exceptions that crept in over the years,
> for one reason or another.  Apparently 10.0 seemed like the appropriate
> time to get rid of the bad pattern.  (Note: I was not involved in the
> decision.)
> We've been essentially rewriting the entire ports infrastructure in-place
> for the past 6 or 7 years.  IMVHO this was entirely necessary: the old
> pkg_* tools were buggy, underdocumented, and no longer suited to the task
> of keeping up with over 20,000 ports.  Along the way we've had to throw
> out a lot of rotten code both in the infrastructure and various ports --
> *and* keep the absolute majority of ports working in the meantime.  This
> was no mean feat.
>> Sometimes you really have to wonder whether these feature deprecations
>> are due less to resource shortages than to special interests outside of
>> FreeBSD's user-base.
> They are mostly due to the idea of not shipping things that do not work
> consistently, and in the way one "might expect".  On rare occasion, yes,
> that will mean breaking POLA.
> (Also note I'm not defending the way this change was or was not documented.)


This is the problem. There is /usr/ports/UPDATING, but those of us who
sensibly use cron & poudriere to update our [ports & pkg] tree never
see the contents of /usr/ports/UPDATING.  Even with systemd cancer 
spreading all through debian I have only had one system fail, using
apt-get dist-upgrade.  Because notice is given in the "upgrade" process
that incompatible changes are being made.

The discussion of recent pinentry related stuff comes to mind.  Since I
have already ranted at length on why this is a show stopper,
on basic human security grounds, I'll stop here.  (Nope, as you can see,
I'm not using anything that pinentry was intended to facilitate.  How
could I, on FreeBSD?)


> As for "special interests", this is specious.  AFAIK the companies that
> embed FreeBSD into their products are primarily interested in the kernel,
> the networking stack, the file systems, and so on.  I do not know of any
> such company that even _uses_ FreeBSD ports.
> Thus, they could have no influence on the outcome.
> tl;dr: the FreeBSD ports community is pretty well self-contained.
> mcl
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list