The ports collection has some serious issues
list1 at gjunka.com
Mon Dec 12 05:05:14 UTC 2016
On 12/12/2016 02:42, Janky Jay, III wrote:
> 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
> Kind Regards,
> Janky Jay, III
I second scratch. Building the ports with default options may not be an
issue but I am rarely (if ever) able to build all 1000+ selected ports
(using poudriere) with the options that I selected. Whenever I can I am
raising issues with port maintainer but they very rarely get addressed,
at least in timely fashion. Even with just 1000+ ports, if an issue
takes a few weeks to resolve (which would be great) it's highly probably
that at least one other port gets broken by the time the first issue is
resolved. With that approach I would never be able to cleanly build all
the ports that I need. So, to make at least some of the build
successful, I have to revisit various options and try to disable them to
verify which ones will allow me to build the ports successfully.
It's not as much a compliant, as I understand it's all done by
volunteers in their free time, but it makes me wonder how FreeBSD even
gets its current popularity within the industry with such stability.
More information about the freebsd-ports