RFC: Port development standards

[Chris H]

Or perhaps GSOC proposal...

Well, I just performed svn up across my entire server base, last night.
For a planned major update across the farm, set for the following AM.
This morning, I open /usr/ports/UPDATING to see what hurdles I might
have to contend with.
OMG! You have GOT to be kidding! REALLY! Not again...
WAFM! OK I've been on BSD since day -1. I've got copies of the original
DEC tapes, and the entire history since. I loved everything about it. It
was POSIX, it ultimately had ONE (smallish) steering committee. Which
ultimately led to it's always being "stable", and
trustworthy/dependable -- unlike the *NIX wannabe OS, that had HUNDREDS
of "distro" makers. Making it more of an "adventure", than server grade
OS. Anyway, to the point; It was this dependability/reliability that
kept me on the BSD train. I could ALWAYS depend on it, and I ALWAYS
knew what to expect. THIS is what set it apart for me, and I'm QUITE
sure, others. The philosophy/standard that BSD chose, allowed
Administrators, and developers to adopt/create routines, and standards
that catered to their environments, and to further hone their
development maintenance environments to better suite their work, as well
as to better contribute to the BSD community, at large. In short; it
worked perfectly for everyone involved.
In recent years, this has seemingly all begun to change; perhaps the
first notable change was from the old-but-tried-and-true, csup/cvsup.
That had permitted FreeBSD users/administrators to easily, quickly, and
reliably update their source, and ports trees. But that method was
dropped for subversion, on the basis that it was more flexible, and
otherwise, more suitable. Unlike (c|v)sup, subversion has been plagued
with security issues. Not to mention the enormous burden the change
forced upon administrators, that had for years, developed systems
surrounding the (c|v)sup method. To make matters worse; licensing wasn't
even in sync with BSD's licensing, let alone, under BSD development/
management (standards?). There's the addition of clang -- a change of
the make(1) framework. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not. Time alone
will tell.
Speaking of; there's also pkg_, no... it's pkgng, or was it pkg. Or how
about WITH_, or was it SET_||UNSET_, or USE... ugh! It's all so hard to
keep up with. Who-the-hell-knows anymore.
Which brings me to my point;
Is it just me? Or has FreeBSD become somewhat of a stranger, or Alien.
Sure I get it; BSD is composed greatly of "contributors". Face it. Those
of us who spend the greater part of our lives, or free time coding,
know; it can get really boring -- really boring. So who wouldn't want to
start cobbling on something new, and different?
But FreeBSD ISN'T primarily a "hobby" OS, much like the other *NIX-like
OS(s) is/are. It is largely used by businesses, and those who's living
DEPENDS on BSD. So this is my cry for a "sanity check";
A proposal/RFC for a "standards committee" regarding the path/direction(s)
of the (Free)BSD ports system. I had the impression there already was
one. But I've been wrong before. ;)

How this goes is up to you -- those who(m) choose to respond.
I would just merely like to address this matter. As I'm well aware that
there are many who share to varying degrees, similar views -- even those
whom are afraid, or unwilling to admit it. :)

Please note, the preceding statements, are not vents of emotion, but
binary acknowledgements based on my (and others expressed) experiences.
This is NOT a flame. This is NOT a rant. It is an RFC. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Thank you for all your time, and consideration in these matters.

Sincerely,
Chris