[RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Baho Utot baho-utot at columbus.rr.com
Fri Jun 23 02:03:14 UTC 2017

On 6/22/2017 8:31 PM, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> On 22/06/2017 23:16, Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 6/22/2017 6:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
>>> scratch65535 at att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
>>>> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
>>>> <linimon at lonesome.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
>>>>>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
>>>>>> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
>>>>>> a Really Good Thing for everyone.
>>>>> I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the
>>>>> mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being
>>>>> available once per release, or rolling with -head.
>>>> Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes
>>>> of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits
>>>> is a social-status enhancer.  **Nobody** with real work to do
>>>> ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken.
>>> And this is where you are so wrong. Ports tree is never in the state 
>>> where everything works and has no bugs. (and cannot be, because 
>>> upstreams have bugs) Even if it compiles and installs it does not 
>>> mean that it is not broken and nobody needs newer version.
>>> Just because your needs are different than others doesn't mean 
>>> others are dilettantes.
>> That is just an argument to not do anything, by default.
>> Here is my point, I am a user that installs an OS ( FreeBSD-11.0). 
>> Then builds the base from releng-11.0.  Followed by building the 
>> ports I need.  That doesn't give me a usable system always. Should I 
>> not be able to do the above and expect a stable system? If not I am 
>> running the wrong OS/system.  Updates are another monster as I do not 
>> want to place my now running system ( finally stable ) and do this 
>> all over again.  I am not up for that.  Hell FreeBSD can not even 
>> boot my dual boot system Win7 and FreeBSD 11.0 on zfs raid without 
>> going to BIOS and selecting the disk to boot from.  No one here could 
>> point me to how to set it up using grub as a boot loader!  The only 
>> information I got was to wing it using half baked information.
> A user would probably start with precompiled packages. Only power 
> users who know what they are doing would try to compile the packages 
> themselves, and at that point I would expect them to know a thing or 
> two about verifying that they compile and work fine.
> Grzegorz

The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system as 
it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it to 
function would/**/spontaneous reboot.  My hand built packages stopped that.

I have built run LFS for 10 years.  I created a packaging system using 
rpm for LFS ( it is on github ) .  I worked for turbolinux as a beta 
tester and worked with the folks that kept KDE3 alive, so I am some one 
that knows something.

I can say from a user stand point ( and previous packager ) that the 
base packages is nothing but a f'n mess.  I still have not cleaned up my 
desktop system after trying base packages.  I was told the only way to 
fix that was to delete the entire pkg database and reinstall all the 
packages I had installed.   That is just not acceptable.  One should be 
able to just delete the entry of the package in the package database and 
move on.  I was going to build a tool to do just that.  I then came 
across OpenBSD, so I have delayed that until I decide if OpenBSD is a 
good fit for me.     pkgng is almost a beta product at this date.

What is wrong with open source projects is this holier that thou 
attitude,  you folks would do well to lose that attitude and start 
working WITH instead of against the users of your system.   They may not 
always be right but they SHOULD BE AT LEAST HEARD.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list