The ports collection has some serious issues
lists at opsec.eu
Mon Dec 12 12:56:09 UTC 2016
> >> 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.
> >Note that there are over 26000 ports, over 1600 port maintainers and
> >hundreds of third party projects get updated every day. While the port
> >maintainers spend a good portion of their spare time trying to keep it
> >building there will be times that some ports fail to build.
> Which, I think you must agree, is a prima facie case for
> lengthening the release cycle.
While I can understand where this comes from, it can be read as
"slow down the world, it's too fast" 8-}
> Perhaps The Major Problem currently is that the makefile goes and
> fetches code chunks from sources that are out of our control. [...]
> Contrast that with how it would be if the maintainer got one copy
> of every potential chunk at the beginning of the cycle and stored
> it in ports so that everyone who builds the port builds against a
> known-good set of bits. It would be both more stable and faster.
> But that's not how it's done. Why not?
As far as I know: The idea was to track upstream, not try to become
upstream. Otherwise the changeset (distfiles) repositories would
be come much larger to maintain on the FreeBSD side.
pi at opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
More information about the freebsd-ports