The ports collection has some serious issues

[Janky Jay, III]

Hello scratch,

On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
> I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because
> I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. 
> There's always some piece of code that's missing and can't be
> found, or is the wrong version, et lengthy cetera.   I've never
> done release engineering, but I honestly can't imagine how some
> of the stuff that makes its way into the ports tree ever got past
> QA.  It would get someone sacked if it happened in industry.
> 
> If the dev schedule would SLOW DOWN and the commitment switched
> to quality from the current emphasis on frequency, with separate
> trees for alpha-, beta-, and real release-quality, fully-vetted
> code, the ports system might become usable again.

	This very, VERY rarely happens to me and I use ports *ONLY* in
production environments. If you could please provide examples and report
the issues to the port maintainer of the ports with issues, that would
greatly help this situation. (Please don't take this as an insult or
anything other than trying to be helpful...) Simply complaining about it
without providing any additional information is certainly not going to
improve anything.

	Being a port maintainer myself, I depend on people reporting any issues
they run into in order to provide the most robust and dependable port I
can. If people never reported any issues and I had no idea there was an
issue with my port, how would I fix it? So, please, PLEASE report any
issues with ports that aren't building. It's not too time consuming on
your part. Just a simple BUG report and how to re-produce and you're
finished.

Kind Regards,
Janky Jay, III


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20161211/a828e085/attachment.sig>