Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Le lundi 03 décembre 2007 19:37, Ade Lovett a écrit : I'll thank you for not putting words into my mouth. Actually, we will thank you for not putting any more words in your own mouth. You seem unable to grasp even basic statistical fundamentals of what a survey entails, and have repeatedly worked on the basis that somehow anyone who even points out the simplest of flaws is part of the them camp. You seem to be the average geek fundamentally unable to head up and look at the real world around you. Statistics are simply not the point. Aryeh is trying to gather new ideas, possibly different from his own. If they are representative, it's a plus. But who cares if he doesn't manage to gather enough information? He is not doing a poll on behalf of any company that would like perfectly detailed results, AFAIK. This is not us vs them. You've decided to take on, as countless others before you have done, an attempt at changing status quo without providing even the basics, let alone prototypes, as to how it *might* be done. They are not talking about how but what might be done, something you even didn't mention in your own mails. Quite frankly, this appears to be nothing more than random thoughts, with not even an iota of concrete information to back it up. Naturally, I can't speak for the FreeBSD community at large, but from this keyboards perspective, you're doing nothing other than wasting time. Prove me wrong. Consider it a challenge. Who are you to deserve that someone would have to cope with stupid challenges in order to obtain answers from you? You don't want to give your opinion, do you? That's fine. It simply won't be taken into account. But, please, leave away from discouraging others or trying to make them waste their time. And just a final word about your older statements: Just exactly what have you done for FreeBSD to the point where you believe you are able to state such a sentence? I certainly wouldn't dream of writing something like this -- you can check ports/ commit logs for my background. Do you really think your background will protect you from criticism? Do you really think quantity is related to quality? At least, you've left this thread, and that's better for everybody. Please consider growing up before posting such null and void answers. Olivier Certner ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Sunday 02 December 2007 10:01, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: 1. What is more important to your personal use of FreeBSD (the ports system, the underlaying OS, some other aspect)? FreeBSD man pages seem alot more helpful than their Linux counterparts. And I can understand FreeBSD Source Code while Linux Code remains obscure to me. 2. How frequently do you interact with the ports systems and what is the most common interaction you have with it? I live in Britain and I don't yet have a Broadband Connection, so I don't access the Ports. I dual-boot Linux for its software, sharing data via an ext2 Partition. 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? The standard two FreeBSD Install CDs provide a good compact distro by themselves. Gnumeric is the only package I really miss. 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? Here in UK we have Cottage Industries (like Maxtux) supplying downloadable Unix Install CDs DVDs at bargain prices. I couldn't find any FreeBSD Ports on downloadable CD. 5. If you where a new FreeBSD user how would your answers above change? If you where brand new to UNIX how whould they change? I'd still be trying to figure out what it all meant. 6. Assuming that there was no additional work on your behalf would you use a new system if it corrected your answer to number 4? Suppose you issued sections of Ports System on individual CDs, maybe with an individual Install Utility on each. I'm sure the UK Cottage Industry would market these. It depends whether you want to look like a Linux Distro. 7. Same as question 6 but for your answer on question 3? Sometime I'll get Broadband and then the Ports will be more accessible for me, however they're provided. 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? I've used Linux increasingly since 1999. I discovered FreeBSD several years ago after getting tired of Political Correctness and obscure Source Code. I finally disentangled myself from MS Windows this year. 9. That is your primary use(s) for your FreeBSD machine(s) (name upto 3)? 1: Internet Access. 2: I'm developing a CD-Writing Utility for Data Backup, which is my own original creation and completely independent of mkisofs and cdrecord. 10. Assuming there is no functional difference what is your preferred installation method for 3rd party software? CD / DVD distro at present. 11. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best) please rate the importance of the following aspects of the ports system? a. User Interface b. Consistency of behaviors and interactions c. Accuracy in dependant port installations d. Internal record keeping e. Granularity's of the port management system User interface = 10. Others = No Experience. 12. Please rate your personal technical skill level? Expert compared to some people. Faictz Ce Que Vouldras: Frank Mitchell ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 People, Please. I joined this list because i have a few ports that list me as the maintainer. I joined in the assumption that this list would provide information related to my maintainership. Now for days i keep getting these immature posts. I am not interested. Should i unsubscribe? People: i don't care who is in whose killfile. Please keep your flames private, and off-list. Some of us are on this list for a reason! Thanks, Koen Martens On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:59:52AM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Monday, December 03, 2007 22:03:50 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was one of several examples... jesus how I wish I could post some of the private replies I got so people could see the amount of frustration out there with the current system but that would color other replies so I will wait until I don't get any new survey replies for 24 hrs then I will post a summary and verbatum the ones the orginal authors let me do this with. Well, that does it for me. You're the first person ever in this list to go into my killfile. The last thing I want is to sit here and read carping and bitching from people who think the ports system is f'd up but have no intention of getting off their butts and writing code to fix it. Feel free to respond. I won't see it. -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -- K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence. Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHVndCktDgRrkFPpYRAoFnAJ93vn5k4Dw+vT8xciIe7sMm06ycwACfTbQJ qjrskRih//7BsfzSU/ghWUg= =Qncy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Koen Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I am not interested. Should i unsubscribe? - if your maintainer address is working, you can get relevant mail. - if you can sit out a storm, do not unsubscribe. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 05:01:35AM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: You would have saved the community a couple of expensive bikesheds (and more to come, as usual) if you had cared to do some research. All of the questions you ask have already been answered hundreds of times on mailing lists over the years. By starting the cycle anew, I'm afraid, you're only contributing to the problem. There are heaps of papers on package management out there. Look for answers there and you will find them. Most of us have our own engineering demons, who breed Napoleonic plans in our heads - to solve every problem in a perfect way. The sooner we learn to control them, the better. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Monday 03 December 2007 01:41:14 Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 05:01:35AM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: You would have saved the community a couple of expensive bikesheds (and more to come, as usual) if you had cared to do some research. All of the questions you ask have already been answered hundreds of times on mailing lists over the years. By starting the cycle anew, I'm afraid, you're only contributing to the problem. There are heaps of papers on package management out there. Look for answers there and you will find them. Most of us have our own engineering demons, who breed Napoleonic plans in our heads - to solve every problem in a perfect way. The sooner we learn to control them, the better. ___ Enough!! There are few demons in the heads of the freebsd community that require controlling. Apart from the owning ones own prejudices here are my own candidates: IMHO the demons in the head that encourage and justify the abuse of other members of the communiity are the worst demons of all. My own choice for the second group of demons in the head who require elimination are those that encourage and justify members of the community who want all community energy spend solely on their own ideas or upon problems that personally affect them. The third groupof demons I would select for immeditae eradication are those that encourage and justify attacks on those who have the courage and energy to either identify or attempt to address problems that are either symptomatic or touch upon the status quo. It is the operations of these three demons that the freebsd community has the greatest need to fear and control. There are three angels I would like to see us harness in greater number: The first, depending upon which side of the atlantic we live, is the one that encourages humor or humour in our dealings. The second are those angels that encourage us to encourage others and thereby build a flexible community mutually respectful of alternative points of view, endeavours and values. The third group of angels, and the one that I and many other members of the freebsd community of trouble heeding, are the group of angels that speak to us about pusuing goals with an appropriate combination of tenaciousness and humility. David --- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 03, 2007, at 03:08 , David Southwell wrote: Enough!! The zeroth group involves those that decide to invoke quasi-religious concepts where they're completely out of place, in a vain attempt to make their point. Live by the code, die by the code. Show us some code. Or, quite frankly, since y'all have missed the subtleties of others, put up, or shut up. Now, y'all don't have to like what I say. Honestly, I don't care either way. But the way things get done around here is, at a minimum, proof of concept code. Harping on endlessly in self-selecting mailing lists will only serve to raise your own blood pressure. Accept this, move on, develop even a prototypical framework, and it *will* be considered. Of course, I can't guarantee that it won't be ridiculed, or otherwise laughed out of town, but them's the breaks. Angels and Demons are merely messenger boys (and gals) of their respective executive line management. No sense calling into question their particular motives. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Live by the code, die by the code. Show us some code. Or, quite frankly, since y'all have missed the subtleties of others, put up, or shut up. Coding before the problem is well understood is the worst of all possible solutions... specifically in many ways thats how to the port system got into such a bad state the idea is to get a good idea of what is wrong before we fix it... I have plenty ideas but am purposefully not stating them so as not to color responses to the survey basically the idea is start assume that we know nothing and gather data without passing judgment and refine stuff based on what we find until there is a set of features and perhaps even a roughed out framework that we can be agreed on by the large majority of people... *ONLY* then can we start to examine what kind of code is even needed. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVDEJ358R5LPuPvsRAplgAKCjoQ8P63vJCsBDd8/ieoNH543jhACeOOZX 8wg95gDTBnYO2d0GPK8j7VM= =OUwt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 03, 2007, at 08:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Coding before the problem is well understood is the worst of all possible solutions... Congratulations on snipping the relevant part of my email which indicated how fundamentally flawed your survey was. Until such time as you understand the concept of self-indicatory statistics, which, by their very nature, exclude most of the relevant population, in this case, the consumers of the FreeBSD ports and packaging system, then you're doomed to failure. specifically in many ways thats how to the port system got into such a bad state Further congratulations on a single sentence that, whilst you may not realize it, tramples all over the not inconsiderable amount of time that a large number of folks have supplied, for free, for your benefit. Just exactly what have you done for FreeBSD to the point where you believe you are able to state such a sentence? I certainly wouldn't dream of writing something like this -- you can check ports/ commit logs for my background. I have plenty ideas but am purposefully not stating them so as not to color responses to the survey basically the idea is start assume that we know nothing and gather data without passing judgment and refine stuff based on what we find until there is a set of features and perhaps even a roughed out framework that we can be agreed on by the large majority of people... *ONLY* then can we start to examine what kind of code is even needed. So, like I said before, start a wiki. Mailing lists do not work for this kind of collaborative study. That has already been proven time and time again. The thought of developing some kind of new-technology system, using a really rather outmoded form of communication, particularly given recent advances in such social engineering, does seem to pose something of a conundrum. Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly Not business friendly? Sorry, son, in which case you're screwed. You're full of talk about how things should be more user-orientated, yet use this as your tagline? Which are you? Developer, or business (and thus, by association, user) friendly? Make up your mind. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 09:42 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: If the questions are flawed then point out where.If the general concept of a survey vs. user stories vs. what ever then state which you think is more productive. If your problem is the medium/forum the data is being gathered in see below. I'll say this one last time. It is not a question of whether the questions are flawed, it is the communications medium in which they were posted. You sent the survey to a single mailing list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrong I also sent it to -char, -current, -stable and -questions. This is, statistically speaking, a self-selecting and exceptionally minor part of the community to which the survey is addressed, most notably: 1. The survey will only be seen by people that currently use FreeBSD (subset 1) Better to refine the questions with them first then broaden the sample size then to ask the wrong questions to a large sample. 2. It will further only be seen by those that are aware of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and have taken the conscious decision to subscribe to it (subset 2) See above 3. Within the readership of a relatively high volume mailing list (to wit, the aforementioned [EMAIL PROTECTED]), a significant minority, at best, will even notice the email (subset 3) That is a problem with any type on-line announcement/post... I have been critized in the past for being overly colorful in my subjects/headlines so this is an attempt to avoid being dismissed for being a *README* type post. 4. Further, within that subset, you are soliciting responses, whereas folks in general are notoriously lazy, or simply believe that responding to such a random survey is a waste of their time and effort (subset 4) That is true for any self-selected sample and by definition all on-line surveys are self-selected. 5. Taking the sub-sub-sub-subset of folks that use FreeBSD, are subscribed to the ports@ mailing list, have read your survey, and responded to it, you then have to do analysis on what percentage of responses are incomplete, flamebait, inaccurate, or otherwise flawed. I have about 20 responses in private email and only the ones you have seen in public are in this category (many of the private ones actually thank me for the courage to conduct such a survey) For example, compare the number of discrete folks that are, to one extent or another, contributing to this thread, as a percentage of total FreeBSD installed systems. Care to guess what that percentage is? Unless it's significant, any results can be massaged into anything at all. Without a statistically valid sampling, it is simply not possible to make any conclusions with whatever dataset exists as a result of said survey. That is why I am slowly widening the set of places the survey is posted gives it time to mature and weed out any obviously badly worded questions and/or pointless ones (like the one on having to decide between fixing the worst and breaking the best) - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVEcn358R5LPuPvsRAn6wAJ43QOEv5tOmkV91qpfrlPxIuZMBjQCgoZAl OJyd2LmyaiheJaZaNbOKpuE= =ckPd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Remko Lodder wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Ade Lovett wrote: Then the community needs to make up it's mind because I have been criticized for making a wiki for a similar issue (SATA issues on ICH9(R)) You do sound like Marie Antonetta. For the time being as far I can tell the consensus is to keep most things on mailing lists (not my choice). You missed the whole point there (a couple of times already :(), The point with that thread was that you were looking for the solution of a ATA driver thingy etc, which does not need to have a Wiki for it because you need to discuss with the clueful people out there. Starting a totally new project with new foundations etc DOES require such a Wiki because you can easily outline your ideas / requirements there and allow you and others to participate to generate code etc. As I stated a couple of times before (perhaps hiddenly), please try to research a bit more and -read- what is being told. Then sleep a day over the issue and THEN email the rest to see what they think; you are quite ambitious, which is appreciated, or at least I think that there should be room for ambition all the time, but you are using it the wrong way, causing people to ignore you (high sound / noise ratio) and there goes the ambition, lost in space. Dont do that to yourself or the project. That is one reason why I contacted Kip Macy privately so as to get a start on setting up a better infrastruct (since it is clear the project will go forward in some form or an other) btw currently there are 4 people (including me) who want to be activally involved with helping on it - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVEee358R5LPuPvsRAnL7AJ4lvEA9P29vbLm/KA3dNoGqyt27QACg49xw Hs04X7b/14l933LQtnJlD4A= =MQJJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 08:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Coding before the problem is well understood is the worst of all possible solutions... Congratulations on snipping the relevant part of my email which indicated how fundamentally flawed your survey was. Until such time as you understand the concept of self-indicatory statistics, which, by their very nature, exclude most of the relevant population, in this case, the consumers of the FreeBSD ports and packaging system, then you're doomed to failure. If the questions are flawed then point out where.If the general concept of a survey vs. user stories vs. what ever then state which you think is more productive. If your problem is the medium/forum the data is being gathered in see below. specifically in many ways thats how to the port system got into such a bad state Further congratulations on a single sentence that, whilst you may not realize it, tramples all over the not inconsiderable amount of time that a large number of folks have supplied, for free, for your benefit. That is one reason for determining if there even is a big enough problem to do re-engineering on (not to have their time be in vein) Just exactly what have you done for FreeBSD to the point where you believe you are able to state such a sentence? I certainly wouldn't dream of writing something like this -- you can check ports/ commit logs for my background. If the system was not in some state of disrepair (a mess) then no one would brought the issue up so by definition the sentence is a) accurate, b) not meant to put anyone or anything in a worse light then needs to be. I have plenty ideas but am purposefully not stating them so as not to color responses to the survey basically the idea is start assume that we know nothing and gather data without passing judgment and refine stuff based on what we find until there is a set of features and perhaps even a roughed out framework that we can be agreed on by the large majority of people... *ONLY* then can we start to examine what kind of code is even needed. So, like I said before, start a wiki. Mailing lists do not work for this kind of collaborative study. That has already been proven time and time again. The thought of developing some kind of new-technology system, using a really rather outmoded form of communication, particularly given recent advances in such social engineering, does seem to pose something of a conundrum. Then the community needs to make up it's mind because I have been criticized for making a wiki for a similar issue (SATA issues on ICH9(R)) You do sound like Marie Antonetta. For the time being as far I can tell the consensus is to keep most things on mailing lists (not my choice). Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly Not business friendly? Sorry, son, in which case you're screwed. You're full of talk about how things should be more user-orientated, yet use this as your tagline? Developer friendly == not having to redo your work because the user demands something they forgot to ask for. Which are you? Developer, or business (and thus, by association, user) friendly? Business Friendly == a lot pretty pictures that do absolutely nothing. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVEAg358R5LPuPvsRAlGSAKDfZPOEsfxdMhiz+mlDD/zbTsOy1wCePhVf imHReT+OXAd2Gjrpa08CZ/Q= =OVU6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Ade Lovett wrote: Then the community needs to make up it's mind because I have been criticized for making a wiki for a similar issue (SATA issues on ICH9(R)) You do sound like Marie Antonetta. For the time being as far I can tell the consensus is to keep most things on mailing lists (not my choice). You missed the whole point there (a couple of times already :(), The point with that thread was that you were looking for the solution of a ATA driver thingy etc, which does not need to have a Wiki for it because you need to discuss with the clueful people out there. Starting a totally new project with new foundations etc DOES require such a Wiki because you can easily outline your ideas / requirements there and allow you and others to participate to generate code etc. As I stated a couple of times before (perhaps hiddenly), please try to research a bit more and -read- what is being told. Then sleep a day over the issue and THEN email the rest to see what they think; you are quite ambitious, which is appreciated, or at least I think that there should be room for ambition all the time, but you are using it the wrong way, causing people to ignore you (high sound / noise ratio) and there goes the ambition, lost in space. Dont do that to yourself or the project. Thanks. remko -- /\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Remko Lodder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xhttp://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 03, 2007, at 09:42 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: If the questions are flawed then point out where.If the general concept of a survey vs. user stories vs. what ever then state which you think is more productive. If your problem is the medium/forum the data is being gathered in see below. I'll say this one last time. It is not a question of whether the questions are flawed, it is the communications medium in which they were posted. You sent the survey to a single mailing list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is, statistically speaking, a self-selecting and exceptionally minor part of the community to which the survey is addressed, most notably: 1. The survey will only be seen by people that currently use FreeBSD (subset 1) 2. It will further only be seen by those that are aware of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and have taken the conscious decision to subscribe to it (subset 2) 3. Within the readership of a relatively high volume mailing list (to wit, the aforementioned [EMAIL PROTECTED]), a significant minority, at best, will even notice the email (subset 3) 4. Further, within that subset, you are soliciting responses, whereas folks in general are notoriously lazy, or simply believe that responding to such a random survey is a waste of their time and effort (subset 4) 5. Taking the sub-sub-sub-subset of folks that use FreeBSD, are subscribed to the ports@ mailing list, have read your survey, and responded to it, you then have to do analysis on what percentage of responses are incomplete, flamebait, inaccurate, or otherwise flawed. For example, compare the number of discrete folks that are, to one extent or another, contributing to this thread, as a percentage of total FreeBSD installed systems. Care to guess what that percentage is? Unless it's significant, any results can be massaged into anything at all. Without a statistically valid sampling, it is simply not possible to make any conclusions with whatever dataset exists as a result of said survey. Stats 101. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:12 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have about 20 responses in private email and only the ones you have seen in public are in this category Enough said. There are currently ~180 people with direct access to the ports/ tree (ie: ports committers). Even assuming all private email responses came from committers, that's an 11% hit rate. Which part of statistically invalid is not getting through here? -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:12 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have about 20 responses in private email and only the ones you have seen in public are in this category Enough said. There are currently ~180 people with direct access to the ports/ tree (ie: ports committers). Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Even assuming all private email responses came from committers, that's an 11% hit rate. That is why I am planning to wait to the end of Dec. or so to report the results in detail (and widen the audiences/forums) Which part of statistically invalid is not getting through here? A self-selected sample will never be statically valid *BUT* it can be informative about what people are thinking. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVEm5358R5LPuPvsRAk4zAJ90UYdW0jfTCyxwlAXDRd2Uf58uPACfbmpS 1NG3/ziaCXuf/4GFBxKRIQ8= =KUFV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
--On Monday, December 03, 2007 11:38:33 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coding before the problem is well understood is the worst of all possible solutions... specifically in many ways thats how to the port system got into such a bad state I've run just about every *nix version imaginable - a number of Linuxes (Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, and others) and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solarix, AIX, just to name a few. I've used apt-get, yum, rpm, et. al. IMNSHO the ports system is by far the best system I've ever used WRT installing/deinstalling software **and solving problems with dependencies**. I have *never* had a problem with the ports system that couldn't be easily solved by 1) reading /usr/ports/UPDATING or 2) deinstalling and reinstalling a port or ports and 3) running pkgdb -F and fixing dependency problems. I can't say the same for any of the other systems, which is why I use FreeBSD exclusively where I can (which is almost everywhere now.) Before you waste any more time, why don't you get very specific about what you think the bad state of the ports system is. I don't like it doesn't qualify nor does ports freezes suck. Oddly enough, the ports systems works perfectly for me, with only a very occasional problem encountered. I maintain a few (8) ports myself, so I'm quite familiar with how they work as well. Perhaps your problem is a lack of familiarity? -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:23 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Please cite where I stated that, or post a retraction. I'll thank you for not putting words into my mouth. You seem unable to grasp even basic statistical fundamentals of what a survey entails, and have repeatedly worked on the basis that somehow anyone who even points out the simplest of flaws is part of the them camp. This is not us vs them. You've decided to take on, as countless others before you have done, an attempt at changing status quo without providing even the basics, let alone prototypes, as to how it *might* be done. Quite frankly, this appears to be nothing more than random thoughts, with not even an iota of concrete information to back it up. Naturally, I can't speak for the FreeBSD community at large, but from this keyboards perspective, you're doing nothing other than wasting time. Prove me wrong. Consider it a challenge. But for now, I certainly see nothing that even merits further responses. -aDe ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Here is a simple example of where improvement would be good. I add a package the easiest way I know on a slow system. mybox# pkg_add -r dnetc Fetching ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/Latest/dnetc.tbz... Done. = Added group dnetc. = Added user dnetc. *** Note: dnetc has been installed with a sample configuration. To change this run: /usr/local/distributed.net/dnetc -config *** So now, if I follow the instructions, I still dont have a running program. I haven't been told I need dnetc_enable=YES in /etc/rc.conf, and the one I should run to start it is in /usr/local/etc/etc/rc.d, I would never infer that from the above if I were a novice user. Additionally, pkg_add -r will often also give an out of date package. Brian ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
A statisticaslly valid sample will be difficult here, I mean a slashdot poll is maybe a way to reach a wide portuion of the userbase, but they all think freebsd is dead:) Some user will object no matter what you do. Even if you emailed root of every system that did a portsnap or cvsup or freebsd-update, some would be offended, though that is one way to reach large numbers. Brian On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:12 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have about 20 responses in private email and only the ones you have seen in public are in this category Enough said. There are currently ~180 people with direct access to the ports/ tree (ie: ports committers). Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Even assuming all private email responses came from committers, that's an 11% hit rate. That is why I am planning to wait to the end of Dec. or so to report the results in detail (and widen the audiences/forums) Which part of statistically invalid is not getting through here? A self-selected sample will never be statically valid *BUT* it can be informative about what people are thinking. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVEm5358R5LPuPvsRAk4zAJ90UYdW0jfTCyxwlAXDRd2Uf58uPACfbmpS 1NG3/ziaCXuf/4GFBxKRIQ8= =KUFV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:12 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have about 20 responses in private email and only the ones you have seen in public are in this category Enough said. There are currently ~180 people with direct access to the ports/ tree (ie: ports committers). Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Even assuming all private email responses came from committers, that's an 11% hit rate. That is why I am planning to wait to the end of Dec. or so to report the results in detail (and widen the audiences/forums) Which part of statistically invalid is not getting through here? A self-selected sample will never be statically valid *BUT* it can be informative about what people are thinking. One item that's always been completely true, it's that NO ONE, I mean NO ONE AT ALL, gets any sort of approval for software until it's actually written, so folks can see what's really being talked about. Does this mean that you might end of doing work that gets tossed away? Yeah, it does mean that, but it's the cost that's paid, even by core members, in order that really sneaky bombs never make their way into FreeBSD's base. If you don't like this, unfortunately, you don't get any say about it whatsoever. About what Ade's been talking about, I mean all his comments about folks who come up with plans (he used the term Napoleonic, I think it fits). Probably every single one of us folks who are actual coders has gone thru the painful initiation trying to help folks who at first present as folks who are honestly trying to learn, so they can contribute, then you find out that their real agenda is in talking YOU into doing THEIR ideas. The dodo-bird that woke me up, I finally realized that he wanted me to write the program that included the entire universe of possible binary combinations, in the belief that such a task, although difficult (and costing MY life, but he was willing to pay the price of MY life, that's ok with him) would be the final program ever needed. After I found his true goals, and realized that no amount of explanation was going to wake him up to the reality of the sheer idiocy he wanted me to launch off on, I shook him off (he was hard to shake, too!) and began, myself, to form the psychological callus that we have most of us formed against these armchair Napoleons. So, how can you tell if you are in that category? It's simple ... are you asking others to do your task for you? Are you justifiying this by saying that some folks should code, and others should plan? Have you actually got any demonstratable code to offer, so that others can REALLY evaluate your goals? If you fit that description, you are an archair Napoleon, that is not arguable, merely something to wail about, won't change any reality. Note that I am NOT telling you here that you are in any category whatever, you can do that as well as I can, and you haven't yet asked me to do anything. At least, you won't, for me, because my own callus is thick enough to shake stuff like that off, the same as I ignore the entreaties to pay 100 bucks for those life experience dipomas. I do know someone who paid something like that, and he STILL can't understand why they won't let him prescribe. That's the real truth, although I won't divulge the name, he exists. Some folks just can't see, that you can't TALK you r way into real respect, that takes honest accomplishments. Like Ade so obviously can point to. If you can, then maybe it's time to prove it, we'll all of us appreciate it very honestly, because the only way to prove it is to DO it. If you can't, then maybe it's time to realize why folks don't listen to self-important people. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:23 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Please cite where I stated that, or post a retraction. I'll thank you for not putting words into my mouth. The fact you have not made a single constructive contribution and that all your replies are negative and doomsday'ish is enough evidence. You seem unable to grasp even basic statistical fundamentals of what a survey entails, and have repeatedly worked on the basis that somehow anyone who even points out the simplest of flaws is part of the them camp. Not at all there are plenty of responible replies (both public and privately) that have helped focus the discussions... yours are negative just to be negative. This is not us vs them. You've decided to take on, as countless others before you have done, an attempt at changing status quo without providing even the basics, let alone prototypes, as to how it *might* be done. You just admitted you bias so why are you now attempting say that your not in the there is nothing wrong camp. Quite frankly, this appears to be nothing more than random thoughts, with not even an iota of concrete information to back it up. All intial attempts at gathering data are by definition highly subjective and by definition somewhat random the main goal of the survey is to assist in making a better set of more focused questions. Naturally, I can't speak for the FreeBSD community at large, but from this keyboards perspective, you're doing nothing other than wasting time. Prove me wrong. Consider it a challenge. Trivial... Just did in less then 10 lines of text. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVFH3358R5LPuPvsRArB0AJ94bhEDfXThCjK9NRw1EYoRp7SEzwCeM8sL ATcVXcPNsrGN3v/tnOMvlPM= =VkrQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Monday 03 December 2007 10:37:21 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:23 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Please cite where I stated that, or post a retraction. I'll thank you for not putting words into my mouth. You seem unable to grasp even basic statistical fundamentals of what a survey entails, and have repeatedly worked on the basis that somehow anyone who even points out the simplest of flaws is part of the them camp. This is not us vs them. You've decided to take on, as countless others before you have done, an attempt at changing status quo without providing even the basics, let alone prototypes, as to how it *might* be done. Quite frankly, this appears to be nothing more than random thoughts, with not even an iota of concrete information to back it up. Naturally, I can't speak for the FreeBSD community at large, but from this keyboards perspective, you're doing nothing other than wasting time. Prove me wrong. Consider it a challenge. But for now, I certainly see nothing that even merits further responses. -aDe Well as none of your reponses have been genuinely constructive I do not suppose an absense of them will be greatly missed. david ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
--On Monday, December 03, 2007 13:53:06 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever attempted to install the individual ports of a mega metaport? Of course I have. And I haven't run into any problems that weren't solvable. Before you waste any more time, why don't you get very specific about what you think the bad state of the ports system is. I don't like it doesn't qualify nor does ports freezes suck. I never asked or said any of those... the original thread was started when I asked how long the port freeze would last... others turned it into a referendum on the ports system... once the thread had been transformed I ventured some of my own ideas. The bad state quote is directly from you. Since you made the statement, I simply asked for some concrete examples of what you think bad state means. You used the term. Surely you have some idea what you meant by it? I have 4 ports awaiting inclusion in the ports tree after the freeze is over (I am willing to wait but I think the fact that there was a ports freeze in the first place points to some underlaying flaws which I cited in the original thread) What would those flaws be? You have a system that is entirely volunteer. Expecting the same performance that you get from a paid system is unrealistic. Sometimes maintainers are very busy and can't commit changes as rapidly as others would like. The solution? Submit your own patches to the port and they will most likely get approved. Sometimes committers are very busy and can't get to your port right away. The solution? Ask a different committer to take a look. Or become a committer yourself. Short of hiring professionals to do this work on a fulltime basis, what would you propose that would improve the system? According to your sig you're a developer, so I'm certain you understand what library incompatibilities are. Given that, how would you propose to not freeze ports while the base system is being prepared for release? -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Monday 03 December 2007 10:59:00 Chuck Robey wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 03, 2007, at 10:12 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I have about 20 responses in private email and only the ones you have seen in public are in this category Enough said. There are currently ~180 people with direct access to the ports/ tree (ie: ports committers). Only 2 are self-reported maintainers and at least 5 admit to not being maintainers... I think your main issue is you are 100% in there is nothing wrong camp and for what ever reason want to convience everyone else any effort to say/do differently is misguided. Even assuming all private email responses came from committers, that's an 11% hit rate. That is why I am planning to wait to the end of Dec. or so to report the results in detail (and widen the audiences/forums) Which part of statistically invalid is not getting through here? A self-selected sample will never be statically valid *BUT* it can be informative about what people are thinking. One item that's always been completely true, it's that NO ONE, I mean NO ONE AT ALL, gets any sort of approval for software until it's actually written, so folks can see what's really being talked about. Does this mean that you might end of doing work that gets tossed away? Yeah, it does mean that, but it's the cost that's paid, even by core members, in order that really sneaky bombs never make their way into FreeBSD's base. If you don't like this, unfortunately, you don't get any say about it whatsoever. About what Ade's been talking about, I mean all his comments about folks who come up with plans (he used the term Napoleonic, I think it fits). Probably every single one of us folks who are actual coders has gone thru the painful initiation trying to help folks who at first present as folks who are honestly trying to learn, so they can contribute, then you find out that their real agenda is in talking YOU into doing THEIR ideas. The dodo-bird that woke me up, I finally realized that he wanted me to write the program that included the entire universe of possible binary combinations, in the belief that such a task, although difficult (and costing MY life, but he was willing to pay the price of MY life, that's ok with him) would be the final program ever needed. After I found his true goals, and realized that no amount of explanation was going to wake him up to the reality of the sheer idiocy he wanted me to launch off on, I shook him off (he was hard to shake, too!) and began, myself, to form the psychological callus that we have most of us formed against these armchair Napoleons. So, how can you tell if you are in that category? It's simple ... are you asking others to do your task for you? Are you justifiying this by saying that some folks should code, and others should plan? Have you actually got any demonstratable code to offer, so that others can REALLY evaluate your goals? If you fit that description, you are an archair Napoleon, that is not arguable, merely something to wail about, won't change any reality. Note that I am NOT telling you here that you are in any category whatever, you can do that as well as I can, and you haven't yet asked me to do anything. At least, you won't, for me, because my own callus is thick enough to shake stuff like that off, the same as I ignore the entreaties to pay 100 bucks for those life experience dipomas. I do know someone who paid something like that, and he STILL can't understand why they won't let him prescribe. That's the real truth, although I won't divulge the name, he exists. Some folks just can't see, that you can't TALK you r way into real respect, that takes honest accomplishments. Like Ade so obviously can point to. If you can, then maybe it's time to prove it, we'll all of us appreciate it very honestly, because the only way to prove it is to DO it. If you can't, then maybe it's time to realize why folks don't listen to self-important people. ___ Just what is your agenda here? Why all the spite and venom? If you do not have anything practical to contribute to the current discussion that takes it forward then why waste your energies saying anything at all? The venom has has sufficient airing and everyone is aware of your attitude. It has already been made clear -- stage 1 information gathering. Either be thoughtful and contribute genuinely useful information or constructive suggestions that takes us forward alternatively you may be ignored. David ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Monday, December 03, 2007 13:53:06 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever attempted to install the individual ports of a mega metaport? Of course I have. And I haven't run into any problems that weren't solvable. Try this as a challenge then install xdm cleanly on the first try without having to install any additional ports from the command line (what it drags in is fine) Just worked flawlessly here: === Port directory: /usr/ports/x11/xdm === Gathering distinfo list for installed ports === Launching 'make checksum' for x11/xdm in background === Gathering dependency list for x11/xdm from ports === Starting recursive 'make config' check === Recursive 'make config' check complete for x11/xdm === Starting build for x11/xdm === === The 'make config' check revealed no dependencies to update === Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === Extracting for xdm-1.1.6_2 = MD5 Checksum OK for xorg/app/xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2. = SHA256 Checksum OK for xorg/app/xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2. === Patching for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Applying FreeBSD patches for xdm-1.1.6_2 === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xmu.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/x11.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xau.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xinerama.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xpm.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xdmcp.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xt.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xext.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xaw8.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on executable: pkg-config - found === Configuring for xdm-1.1.6_2 [snip] === Building for xdm-1.1.6_2 [snip] === xdm-1.1.6_2 is not depended on by any other ports === Creating a backup package for old version xdm-1.1.6_2 === Package can be found in /usr/ports/packages/All === Installing for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Generating temporary packing list === Checking if x11/xdm already installed [snip] === Compressing manual pages for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Registering installation for xdm-1.1.6_2 === SECURITY REPORT: [snip] === Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Upgrade for xdm-1.1.6_2 to xdm-1.1.6_2 succeeded Obviously, whatever port you had to install was already installed here, but that's clearly enough to pass your challenge. With one simple command, the ports system ensured dependencies were met, fetched it, verified the checksum, extracted it, configured it correctly, built it, installed it, and cleaned up after itself, all without requiring any user input. I would've had to do each of those steps by hand without it. Short of hiring professionals to do this work on a fulltime basis, what would you propose that would improve the system? According to your sig you're a developer, so I'm certain you understand what library incompatibilities are. Given that, how would you propose to not freeze ports while the base system is being prepared for release? I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to taint the survey any more then it needs to be. I would suggest you should spend your time implementing whatever your ideas are rather than talking about it. You've sent more traffic to these lists than heavy committers. It's rather tedious. The normal process is to implement it, make it available, incorporate feedback, rinse, repeat. If you get no interest, then you use it yourself forever because you think it's a huge improvement. If you get feedback and incorporate it, then more people will use it. When enough people think it's a good idea, it'll be incorporated for everyone to use. A fairly simple process, and a fairly intuitive process to anyone who's coding voluntarily to improve a system for themselves. So far, you've done the opposite. You've talked about it (vaguely I might add) rather than implementing it, made nothing available, and have been very unresponsive to feedback, wihch I expect you will be again with this message. Everyone hopes you can improve the ports system in some way, but you're not off to a very good start by alienating those who are responsible for maintaining a very nice system as demonstrated above. -- Skip ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Monday, December 03, 2007 13:53:06 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever attempted to install the individual ports of a mega metaport? Of course I have. And I haven't run into any problems that weren't solvable. Before you waste any more time, why don't you get very specific about what you think the bad state of the ports system is. I don't like it doesn't qualify nor does ports freezes suck. I never asked or said any of those... the original thread was started when I asked how long the port freeze would last... others turned it into a referendum on the ports system... once the thread had been transformed I ventured some of my own ideas. The bad state quote is directly from you. Since you made the statement, I simply asked for some concrete examples of what you think bad state means. You used the term. Surely you have some idea what you meant by it? I have 4 ports awaiting inclusion in the ports tree after the freeze is over (I am willing to wait but I think the fact that there was a ports freeze in the first place points to some underlaying flaws which I cited in the original thread) What would those flaws be? You have a system that is entirely volunteer. Expecting the same performance that you get from a paid system is unrealistic. Sometimes maintainers are very busy and can't commit changes as rapidly as others would like. The solution? Submit your own patches to the port and they will most likely get approved. Sometimes committers are very busy and can't get to your port right away. The solution? Ask a different committer to take a look. Or become a committer yourself. Umm, not sure I agree with you here, fella, because I've been a user of commercial Unix software both as a direct purchaser (my first Unix was the old Everex Esix Unix) and often enough for different employers. I can state here unequivolcal truths, that NO ONE with equal experience would possibly challenge: commercial software houses DO NOT give better service, neither more timely, nor more responsive, than any aspect whatever of FreeBSD. There are aspects of FreeBSD (ports and others) that I personally think could be improved, but the only way that ANY coomercial product is better, is if you are the one or two biggest customers of that software house. If you're not, then there simply isn't even any possible chance of me being anywhere near wrong on this. If you agree, keep silent, you know as well as I that if all folks who agreed answered up here, we'd never end this thread. If you are a professional, and can state any example at all of any company at all that beats FreeBSD's actual record, g'wan, post. It's only you that you'd be embarrassing. God knows I never got such service as one gets, as a regular item, from these mailing lists. I'm not saying you will ayways get agreement with your own personal peeve, I know I don't, but I do know, that asking any commercial company to change their product, you will get some sales geek who will jolly you by saying its in the pipe but, in fact, don't hold your breath, fella, it's never gonna arrive. I can be pretty certain here about not being seriously challenged, anyone who's experienced enough to know, knows I'm right. Short of hiring professionals to do this work on a fulltime basis, what would you propose that would improve the system? According to your sig you're a developer, so I'm certain you understand what library incompatibilities are. Given that, how would you propose to not freeze ports while the base system is being prepared for release? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
David Southwell wrote: Just what is your agenda here? That's so november 2007, we dont use calenders nowadays Why all the spite and venom? If you do not have anything practical to contribute to the current discussion that takes it forward then why waste your energies saying anything at all? please step away from the Mirror. Now, stop this thread, stop the discussion, build something, and come back, if you cannot code or produce something with whatever you think the tree should be using, then *silence*. -- /\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Remko Lodder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xhttp://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Skip Ford wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Monday, December 03, 2007 13:53:06 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever attempted to install the individual ports of a mega metaport? Of course I have. And I haven't run into any problems that weren't solvable. Try this as a challenge then install xdm cleanly on the first try without having to install any additional ports from the command line (what it drags in is fine) Just worked flawlessly here: === Port directory: /usr/ports/x11/xdm === Gathering distinfo list for installed ports === Launching 'make checksum' for x11/xdm in background === Gathering dependency list for x11/xdm from ports === Starting recursive 'make config' check === Recursive 'make config' check complete for x11/xdm === Starting build for x11/xdm === === The 'make config' check revealed no dependencies to update === Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Vulnerability check disabled, database not found === Extracting for xdm-1.1.6_2 = MD5 Checksum OK for xorg/app/xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2. = SHA256 Checksum OK for xorg/app/xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2. === Patching for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Applying FreeBSD patches for xdm-1.1.6_2 === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xmu.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/x11.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xau.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xinerama.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xpm.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xdmcp.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xt.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xext.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xaw8.pc - found === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on executable: pkg-config - found === Configuring for xdm-1.1.6_2 [snip] === Building for xdm-1.1.6_2 [snip] === xdm-1.1.6_2 is not depended on by any other ports === Creating a backup package for old version xdm-1.1.6_2 === Package can be found in /usr/ports/packages/All === Installing for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Generating temporary packing list === Checking if x11/xdm already installed [snip] === Compressing manual pages for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Registering installation for xdm-1.1.6_2 === SECURITY REPORT: [snip] === Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Upgrade for xdm-1.1.6_2 to xdm-1.1.6_2 succeeded Obviously, whatever port you had to install was already installed here, but that's clearly enough to pass your challenge. With one simple command, the ports system ensured dependencies were met, fetched it, verified the checksum, extracted it, configured it correctly, built it, installed it, and cleaned up after itself, all without requiring any user input. I would've had to do each of those steps by hand without it. You missed the point completely do it completely from scratch (no ports installed) then compare the results to doing install of xorg with no ports installed and a xorg with xdm installed before xorg is installed (you will get three completely different executable version each with different looks and feels) Short of hiring professionals to do this work on a fulltime basis, what would you propose that would improve the system? According to your sig you're a developer, so I'm certain you understand what library incompatibilities are. Given that, how would you propose to not freeze ports while the base system is being prepared for release? I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to taint the survey any more then it needs to be. I would suggest you should spend your time implementing whatever your ideas are rather than talking about it. You've sent more traffic to these lists than heavy committers. It's rather tedious. Lets see I can write hello, world with anything from 1 line to some very large line count but only one is correct... if you do not know what the right solution is before hand isn't it wise to do some study before hand? The normal process is to implement it, make it available, incorporate feedback, rinse, repeat. If you get no interest, then you use it yourself forever because you think it's a huge improvement. If you get feedback and incorporate it, then more people will use it. When enough people think it's a good idea, it'll be incorporated for everyone to use. A fairly simple process, and a fairly intuitive process to anyone who's coding voluntarily to improve a system for themselves. The larger and more complex a system gets the more likelly it is random tweaks here and there will cause serious harm. It is best to look at the whole picture first. So far, you've
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Monday 03 December 2007 11:53:46 Remko Lodder wrote: David Southwell wrote: Just what is your agenda here? That's so november 2007, we dont use calenders nowadays Do you mean a colender or a calendar? Why all the spite and venom? If you do not have anything practical to contribute to the current discussion that takes it forward then why waste your energies saying anything at all? please step away from the Mirror. I do not know how you manage to think of such a smart reply. Now, stop this thread, stop the discussion, build something, and come back, if you cannot code or produce something with whatever you think the tree should be using, then *silence*. Twice David ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Now, stop this thread, stop the discussion, build something, and come back, if you cannot code or produce something with whatever you think the tree should be using, then *silence*. I know this will get me flamed but I wonder if any of the people who are saying just code it have ever worked at a level higher then being a coder and/or have taken sys. anany. in school. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVGCh358R5LPuPvsRAsQOAKCPRqv7zZl2OjwnunzK1Wq0j5yOugCglJCy mn1+P0o82pQfU1cPsuSCe9o= =bgim -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 2, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Miguel Mendez wrote: I already replied to your questions in private but I wonder if you took a look at pkgsrc and the enhancements the OpenBSD people have done the pkg* commands and whether you think borrowing from them would be useful. I've been using pkgsrc on my mac desktop, and it is decent; however the upgrade of software is still a PITA. One benefit would be to have a common source/package management across *all* of our desktops and servers... but the number of ports in freebsd's collection is still way higher than that of pkgsrc, so switching today is not feasible for us. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: I am purposelly not looking at any previous solutions right now... If and when it is determined that changes to the current system are needed I will look at them then for ideas of what has not worked. (like the Internet or other large complex systems we don't know how to make it we only know what doesn't work) Take a look at MacPorts and see how they install + activate software and run away as fast as you can. It makes life very hard for upgrades, etc. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 2, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: 1. What is more important to your personal use of FreeBSD (the ports system, the underlaying OS, some other aspect)? The core OS. Ports is icing on the cake. 2. How frequently do you interact with the ports systems and what is the most common interaction you have with it? nearly daily (less so, now that I've hired someone to do that for me :-) 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? ease of installation. 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? upgrading individual ports tracking which dependencies came from a given port, or which were inherited from a dependency. 5. If you where a new FreeBSD user how would your answers above change? If you where brand new to UNIX how whould they change? Can't answer that. 6. Assuming that there was no additional work on your behalf would you use a new system if it corrected your answer to number 4? Yes, if you can improve the upgrade process, I'd use your tool. None of the current systems work like I'd want... either they rebuild/ reinstall everything or they get confused when dependencies change on a given port between upgrades. 7. Same as question 6 but for your answer on question 3? If it broke something I wouldn't use it. 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? Unix since 1986-ish (original BSD even...) FreeBSD since version 3.3. 9. That is your primary use(s) for your FreeBSD machine(s) (name upto 3)? Web servers Email servers DNS servers 10. Assuming there is no functional difference what is your preferred installation method for 3rd party software? The native package management system for whatever OS is the base. Anything else is fighting an uphill battle. 11. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best) please rate the importance of the following aspects of the ports system? a. User Interface 8 b. Consistency of behaviors and interactions 9 c. Accuracy in dependant port installations 10 d. Internal record keeping 10 e. Granularity's of the port management system 6 12. Please rate your personal technical skill level? highly technical. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-301-869-4449 x806 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 03:01:37PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Now, stop this thread, stop the discussion, build something, and come back, if you cannot code or produce something with whatever you think the tree should be using, then *silence*. I know this will get me flamed but I wonder if any of the people who are saying just code it have ever worked at a level higher then being a coder and/or have taken sys. anany. in school. There are (at least) two things required for a mind-change: A design (which you understand that is needed) and a proof of concept (which people keep asking for). Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Edwin Groothuis wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 03:01:37PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Now, stop this thread, stop the discussion, build something, and come back, if you cannot code or produce something with whatever you think the tree should be using, then *silence*. I know this will get me flamed but I wonder if any of the people who are saying just code it have ever worked at a level higher then being a coder and/or have taken sys. anany. in school. There are (at least) two things required for a mind-change: A design (which you understand that is needed) and a proof of concept (which people keep asking for). And that is what I keep saying... namely I am blanking my own ideas out as much as possible to get a good idea of what is needed premature changes carry much more risk then potential reward... the current goal is only do a pre-requirements gathering look at where we need to focus. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVGt9358R5LPuPvsRAvyWAJ43CjplLsDrg6y4EXemINFD+DhBKQCg3zzd JkX5npaNdlLji+8vMGJcA0E= =q5cM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
--On Monday, December 03, 2007 14:20:16 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try this as a challenge then install xdm cleanly on the first try without having to install any additional ports from the command line (what it drags in is fine) [EMAIL PROTECTED] make deinstall distclean === Deinstalling for x11/xdm === Deinstalling xdm-1.1.6_2 pkg_delete: package 'xdm-1.1.6_2' is required by these other packages and may not be deinstalled (but I'll delete it anyway): krdesktop-1.8_5 xorg-7.3_1 xorg-apps-7.3 === Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Deleting distfiles for xdm-1.1.6_2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] make install clean = xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2 doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/xorg/app. = Attempting to fetch from ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/x11/x.org/pub/individual/app/. xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2 100% of 384 kB 149 kBps === Extracting for xdm-1.1.6_2 = MD5 Checksum OK for xorg/app/xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2. = SHA256 Checksum OK for xorg/app/xdm-1.1.6.tar.bz2. === xdm-1.1.6_2 depends on file: /usr/local/sbin/pkg_info - found === Patching for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Applying FreeBSD patches for xdm-1.1.6_2 skip lots of programming stuff. install -o root -g wheel -m 555 -s chooser /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/chooser /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/GiveConsole /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/GiveConsole /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/TakeConsole /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/TakeConsole /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xaccess /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xaccess /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xreset /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xreset /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xresources /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xresources /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xservers /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xservers /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xsession /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xsession /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xsetup_0 /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xsetup_0 /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xstartup /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xstartup /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/Xwilling /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/Xwilling /bin/cp -n /usr/local/share/examples/xdm/xdm-config /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/xdm-config === Compressing manual pages for xdm-1.1.6_2 === Registering installation for xdm-1.1.6_2 === SECURITY REPORT: This port has installed the following files which may act as network servers and may therefore pose a remote security risk to the system. /usr/local/bin/xdm If there are vulnerabilities in these programs there may be a security risk to the system. FreeBSD makes no guarantee about the security of ports included in the Ports Collection. Please type 'make deinstall' to deinstall the port if this is a concern. === Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2 What was I supposed to find? Here's a hint that would help a *ton* of users. Don't try to install a port until your ports tree is up to date. Completely up to date - as is, run portsnap or cvs or cvsup *first*, *then* try to install your port. I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to taint the survey any more then it needs to be. This is the part I don't get. If you have suggestions, post them. Post the code that implements your suggestions. *Then* people can evaluate whether or not your suggestions add value to the ports system. Why the silly games? As I read them, this seems to be the primary objection of all the people responding who have @freebsd.org in their email address. They've heard it all before, but they know that actions speak much louder than words. If you say the implementation of foo is flawed, and then you post code that, IYO, improves it, people with experience and knowledge can review it and say, Hey, nice idea or sorry, your code would break ports and here's why. Without the code, all the surveys and gesticulations in this tread accomplish little except to irritate people. -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Paul Schmehl wrote: Here's a hint that would help a *ton* of users. Don't try to install a port until your ports tree is up to date. Completely up to date - as is, run portsnap or cvs or cvsup *first*, *then* try to install your port. I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to taint the survey any more then it needs to be. This is the part I don't get. If you have suggestions, post them. Post the code that implements your suggestions. *Then* people can evaluate whether or not your suggestions add value to the ports system. Why the silly games? As I read them, this seems to be the primary objection of all the people responding who have @freebsd.org in their email address. They've heard it all before, but they know that actions speak much louder than words. If you say the implementation of foo is flawed, and then you post code that, IYO, improves it, people with experience and knowledge can review it and say, Hey, nice idea or sorry, your code would break ports and here's why. Without the code, all the surveys and gesticulations in this tread accomplish little except to irritate people. Why the silly games? I get the feeling that Aryeh is honestly not understanding that he's trying to change the basic way that things get done in FreeBSD. He doesn't see that. In industry, first a decision is made that a market exists for such and such, then a study is made as to what could be done realistically. We don't operate that way. What we're all afraid of, Aryeh, is that you're going to run off with your poll of what you believe is needed (when we haven't even agreed that anything is needed) and you'll code something up, under the completely wrong misapprehension that if you code something up that does what the poll results said, it would get added in, pal, that's totally, totally false, you can ask any committer whatever, you will never get any apriori agreement on the adding of code, no matter what, until we can see the code. This has been endlessly argued in the past, and folks have certainly left FreeBSD over it, but it will not change. If you can't see that, then we will remain at loggerheads. If you can see that, then quit asking folks to agree on stuff without showing us code. I don't care how much research you do on what is needed, you will never change that fact, all you're going to do is trigger knee-jerk reactions from folks who have been *very highly* sensitized by prior attempts to change that rule. It's not gonna happen, and you strongly seem to be trying an end-run around it. If you honestly aren't, then you need to do a better job of convincing folks of that fact. That's what it all boils down to, anyone disagree, at base? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:23:33 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: This is why I a asked informally for a p4 account (the person I asked should be asking formally on my behalf soon)... To whom it may concern: please, *please*, no... Too much noise... WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 10:41 -0800, Brian wrote: Here is a simple example of where improvement would be good. I add a package the easiest way I know on a slow system. mybox# pkg_add -r dnetc Fetching ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/Latest/dnetc.tbz... Done. = Added group dnetc. = Added user dnetc. *** Note: dnetc has been installed with a sample configuration. To change this run: /usr/local/distributed.net/dnetc -config *** So now, if I follow the instructions, I still dont have a running program. I haven't been told I need dnetc_enable=YES in /etc/rc.conf, and the one I should run to start it is in /usr/local/etc/etc/rc.d, I would never infer that from the above if I were a novice user. Additionally, pkg_add -r will often also give an out of date package. Brian It's typically considered bad form for a port, especially one for a network service, to automatically enable itself. That is my job as the box admin. As for the rc.d issues that's explained in handbook. In the ports ports section under Post-installation Activities it reads: Ports that should start at boot (such as Internet servers) will usually install a sample script in /usr/local/etc/rc.d. You should review this script for correctness and edit or rename it if needed. See Starting Services for more information. Under Starting Services there is a section which I think gives enough of an overview of rcNG to point a user to the fact that they need to check the rc.d script for the appropriate rc.conf variable to add. Many rcNG scripts also have a very handy comment such as the following: # Add the following line to /etc/rc.conf to enable `foo': # #foo_enable=YES I don't think all this needs to be reiterated every time a port with an rcNG script is installed since it's been explained in our user documentation. As for the pkg-message problem that does suck. One thing OpenBSD's pkg_add (which doubles as their package upgrade utility) does is display all pkg-message info at the end of a run and I find is rather nice. I don't do C or ruby so anyone interested can feel free to implement that if they care. tom -- | tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org tmclaugh at FreeBSD.org | | FreeBSD http://www.FreeBSD.org | ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Robey wrote: Paul Schmehl wrote: Why the silly games? I get the feeling that Aryeh is honestly not understanding that he's trying to change the basic way that things get done in FreeBSD. He doesn't see that. In industry, first a decision is made that a market exists for such and such, then a study is made as to what could be done realistically. We don't operate that way. If finding the market is all they do but they don't follow the whole process to produce code then they completely missed the point... the idea of modern (almost anything that post-dates v7 of unix) looks at how to do the whole process systematically... thats the idea here doing a market survey then doing no code is as worse as making random tweaks for no apparent reason (i.e. you have no idea if they are needed) Well, that last paragraph seems to be telling me that you do indeed want to modify the procedure we produce code with. OK then, I tried to explain what parts are worth dicussing, and what parts aren't, and you've either decided I'm just plain wrong, or lying to you. I'm not insulted, I'm just bored by the endless arguments that have been there about once or twice a year, and never ever gets even close to causing change. Seeing as you are going to tilt at windmills, I now lose interest. This is an unrealistic target you've aimed at, but I'll surely admit that you sound much more reasonable than the usual sort of folks who try to take this on. Too bad. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Having said that dependencies often do depend on the order the leaves are installed, because some ports will use alternate dependencies according to what's already there. It makes things a lot easier to maintain. ___ btw xdm is not the worst offender for example if you install abiword after installing gnome it will not start but if you install it before hand then install gnome no issue ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:57:40 -0500 Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually what see is a signficant difference in the way the banner is displayed and no I will not change the rules becuase the root issue is xdm-banner is only installed if you make the metaport with nothing else installed I'm a little sceptical that it's installed by anything: $ find /usr/ports/ -iname Makefile |xargs grep -i xbanner |grep -Ev ^/usr/ports/x11/xbanner/ /usr/ports/x11/Makefile:SUBDIR += xbanner Having said that dependencies often do depend on the order the leaves are installed, because some ports will use alternate dependencies according to what's already there. It makes things a lot easier to maintain. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:23:20 -0600, Aryeh Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having said that dependencies often do depend on the order the leaves are installed, because some ports will use alternate dependencies according to what's already there. It makes things a lot easier to maintain. ___ btw xdm is not the worst offender for example if you install abiword after installing gnome it will not start but if you install it before hand then install gnome no issue Have you report this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] yet? The abiword port will enable with GNOME option by default if GNOME exists in system, but you can avoid that by use WITHOUT_GNOME=yes. You want to rewrite ports system because of this? Cheers, Mezz -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:15:10 -0600, Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 === Cleaning for xdm-1.1.6_2 What was I supposed to find? Did you actually run xdm or just assume because it compiled that it was installed the same way in all cases... hint: the visual appearance varies signficiantly depending on what method you use.XDM is no not unique in this either just off the top of my head I can name the following ports that demostrate different behaviour depending on what order the are installed: gnome-office abiword boost openoffice-2 the entire set of jdk's perl (what is the difference between the 5.8.8 in the base system and the one in ports?!?!?!?) these are just the ones I have found after installing 2 mega metaports and the java stuff... god knows what is lurking out there 1) Perl hasn't been in base system since FreeBSD 5.x. 2) There is no 'make uninstall' target in ports tree that I recall. 3) Never and never edit anything inside /usr/share/examples/* 4) If xdm behaves different when you install one of ports that xdm's configure happened to detect it. You should check in xdm to see what its configure has pick up dependency by auto-check then report to the maintainer to fix xdm dependency. That kind of bug doesn't make ports tree need to be rewrite. Cheers, Mezz Here's a hint that would help a *ton* of users. Don't try to install a port until your ports tree is up to date. Completely up to date - as is, run portsnap or cvs or cvsup *first*, *then* try to install your port. I use the following script (i.e. by hand) installing a new port (might be overkill): cd /usr/ports/ cvsup /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile (I actually use a local cvs repo but this is clearer) portupgrade -a make uninstall distclean install If that doesn't guerntee upto date ports nothing will I have several possible solutions (contact me privately if you want more detail) but am purposely not stating them publically so as not to taint the survey any more then it needs to be. This is the part I don't get. If you have suggestions, post them. Post the code that implements your suggestions. *Then* people can evaluate whether or not your suggestions add value to the ports system. Why the silly games? As I read them, this seems to be the primary objection of all the people responding who have @freebsd.org in their email address. They've heard it all before, but they know that actions speak much louder than words. If you say the implementation of foo is flawed, and then you post code that, IYO, improves it, people with experience and knowledge can review it and say, Hey, nice idea or sorry, your code would break ports and here's why. Without the code, all the surveys and gesticulations in this tread accomplish little except to irritate people. See my reply to Chuck. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVH/u358R5LPuPvsRAnYZAKCCUg37RDdt0ayWzfnPusA1gwFTDACfYiS2 CVudkH3xInMtHMaPpE7/oow= =GAvV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Messenger wrote: On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:23:20 -0600, Aryeh Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having said that dependencies often do depend on the order the leaves are installed, because some ports will use alternate dependencies according to what's already there. It makes things a lot easier to maintain. ___ btw xdm is not the worst offender for example if you install abiword after installing gnome it will not start but if you install it before hand then install gnome no issue Have you report this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] yet? The abiword port will enable with GNOME option by default if GNOME exists in system, but you can avoid that by use WITHOUT_GNOME=yes. You want to rewrite ports system because of this? It was one of several examples... jesus how I wish I could post some of the private replies I got so people could see the amount of frustration out there with the current system but that would color other replies so I will wait until I don't get any new survey replies for 24 hrs then I will post a summary and verbatum the ones the orginal authors let me do this with. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVMOW358R5LPuPvsRAg9zAJ0W8m1qTLp7lQ22G78oJS8DSgrr7wCdHgsA fGrYY61Uq9pWI5dg0dIFqzg= =57V5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:03:50 -0600, Aryeh M. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Messenger wrote: On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:23:20 -0600, Aryeh Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having said that dependencies often do depend on the order the leaves are installed, because some ports will use alternate dependencies according to what's already there. It makes things a lot easier to maintain. ___ btw xdm is not the worst offender for example if you install abiword after installing gnome it will not start but if you install it before hand then install gnome no issue Have you report this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] yet? The abiword port will enable with GNOME option by default if GNOME exists in system, but you can avoid that by use WITHOUT_GNOME=yes. You want to rewrite ports system because of this? It was one of several examples... Still a bad example from you anyway, because it is not a bug in ports system. Cheers, Mezz jesus how I wish I could post some of the private replies I got so people could see the amount of frustration out there with the current system but that would color other replies so I will wait until I don't get any new survey replies for 24 hrs then I will post a summary and verbatum the ones the orginal authors let me do this with. - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVMOW358R5LPuPvsRAg9zAJ0W8m1qTLp7lQ22G78oJS8DSgrr7wCdHgsA fGrYY61Uq9pWI5dg0dIFqzg= =57V5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: 1. What is more important to your personal use of FreeBSD (the ports system, the underlaying OS, some other aspect)? 2. How frequently do you interact with the ports systems and what is the most common interaction you have with it? 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? 5. If you where a new FreeBSD user how would your answers above change? If you where brand new to UNIX how whould they change? 6. Assuming that there was no additional work on your behalf would you use a new system if it corrected your answer to number 4? 7. Same as question 6 but for your answer on question 3? 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? 9. That is your primary use(s) for your FreeBSD machine(s) (name upto 3)? 10. Assuming there is no functional difference what is your preferred installation method for 3rd party software? 11. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best) please rate the importance of the following aspects of the ports system? a. User Interface b. Consistency of behaviors and interactions c. Accuracy in dependant port installations d. Internal record keeping e. Granularity's of the port management system 12. Please rate your personal technical skill level? - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUoJ/358R5LPuPvsRAsXMAJ9w4tU/uFbm30lAmVI2foESX4wRwQCg7SPD j3s4YmZv+qHIt2iQjN1NPxg= =0ScV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I promised not to venture my opinion on things but this one needs it Too much talk from people not willing to do the heavy lifting. There have been a number of serious attempts and in depth research into various ports system issues (I still need to wade through a rather long one sent to me privately)... an other question did you read the preamble to this thread at all? (where it says I have volunteered to do the heavy lifting for anything that comes out this discussion [two others privately asked to also be involved]) - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUsW9358R5LPuPvsRAmAHAJ9rjRvYBVFObiJ3ln3l1Rt4rjJQgwCgtvp8 YkY7kik0AqbLlvmfz5mHNXc= =7LUk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? Good people doing the heavy lifting 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? Too much talk from people not willing to do the heavy lifting. 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? Since 1998. -- Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference: http://www.bsdcan.org/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Sunday 02 December 2007 06:41:12 Dan Langille wrote: On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? Good people doing the heavy lifting 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? Too much talk from people not willing to do the heavy lifting. 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? Since 1998. Well in this case the people doing the talking are also committing themselves to the lifting so I guess you would say here that the advocates of change are on the side of the angels. I trust you are not dedicated to becoming a permanent member of the opposition!! If so I might be tempted to say the worst aspect of the current system is that there are too many people determined to deny the need for change irrespective of merit. David ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Dec 2, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Hi, As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: I already replied to your questions in private but I wonder if you took a look at pkgsrc and the enhancements the OpenBSD people have done the pkg* commands and whether you think borrowing from them would be useful. Cheers, Miguel Mendez [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.energyhq.be PGP Key: 0xDC8514F1 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:37:22 -0600, David Southwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 02 December 2007 06:41:12 Dan Langille wrote: On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? Good people doing the heavy lifting 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? Too much talk from people not willing to do the heavy lifting. 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? Since 1998. Well in this case the people doing the talking are also committing themselves to the lifting so I guess you would say here that the advocates of change are on the side of the angels. I trust you are not dedicated to becoming a permanent member of the opposition!! If so I might be tempted to say the worst aspect of the current system is that there are too many people determined to deny the need for change irrespective of merit. Sad, I second on Dan's answer for #4 question. It's not that we opposite it. It's faith that we don't have. It's not first time for people to keep talk with no action. It's called bikeshed. The share/gnome/ - share/ project was very successful, because I have pushed it hard. I did 90 committed in MC CVS per day about two or three times and did a lot of work on hundreds of port. Whomever start to talk will have to be expect to do a lot of works to get success. I suggest you to get start to setup a team, setup ports development somewhere, and make sure you have changes available. Then we will starting to have a faith on this project. Cheers, Mezz David -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Too much talk from people not willing to do the heavy lifting. There have been a number of serious attempts and in depth research into various ports system issues (I still need to wade through a rather long one sent to me privately)... an other question did you read the preamble to this thread at all? (where it says I have volunteered to do the heavy lifting for anything that comes out this discussion [two others privately asked to also be involved]) What he's saying is that there have been many before you who have said and promised the same. Ideas get hashed out and we build amazing bike-sheds, but there has seldom been real product. What you have yet to do is distinguish yourself from history. In short, patches please. Until then, don't expect enthusiastic encouragement. -- Darren Pilgrim ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Darren Pilgrim wrote: Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Too much talk from people not willing to do the heavy lifting. There have been a number of serious attempts and in depth research into various ports system issues (I still need to wade through a rather long one sent to me privately)... an other question did you read the preamble to this thread at all? (where it says I have volunteered to do the heavy lifting for anything that comes out this discussion [two others privately asked to also be involved]) What he's saying is that there have been many before you who have said and promised the same. Ideas get hashed out and we build amazing bike-sheds, but there has seldom been real product. What you have yet to do is distinguish yourself from history. Sounds like a fancy way of excusing yourself from not wanting to be a part of the process... If you really cared so much why not file (at least privately) a set of serious answers to the survey. As was said in the preamble it is not totally clear if the current system is broken enough (or at all) to warrant any serious changes. Until that is established it totally irresponsible in my mind to purpose any changes (i.e. it is a complex enough system that making adhoc changes carries more risk then reward) In short, patches please. Until then, don't expect enthusiastic encouragement. Depending on the outcome of the survey and followup's to it patches may prove to be insufficient (only a wholesale rewrite will suffice) - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHU6QD358R5LPuPvsRAqMJAKDkpy4gbaa95zwPULpRpYsE+xS+agCgo3FR bDY5GyyAijujcN+JPmJ+nK4= =3XAz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Miguel Mendez wrote: On Dec 2, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: Hi, As has been hashed out in -ports@ over the last few days there is at least a need to examine weither or not the current ports system should remain as is or potentially be re-engineered in the future (estimates if and when needed vary from ASAP to 10-15 years). I have volunteered to undertake a feasibility/pilot project to examine what changes (if any) are needed in the system (for the purposes of this thread I will not venture any of my own suggestions). I have the following broad questions for people: I already replied to your questions in private but I wonder if you took a look at pkgsrc and the enhancements the OpenBSD people have done the pkg* commands and whether you think borrowing from them would be useful. I am purposelly not looking at any previous solutions right now... If and when it is determined that changes to the current system are needed I will look at them then for ideas of what has not worked. (like the Internet or other large complex systems we don't know how to make it we only know what doesn't work) - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHU6SO358R5LPuPvsRAj2OAKDSH+7nff+SkHAyypYc3OjbyyYuXwCfehta 6PyrvPsFAduJXSBIkS1V8Nc= =1KAL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? Easy to write ports, or modify those created by others. 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? Slowness of pkg_version and make index. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC/P] Port System Re-Engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Messenger wrote: On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:37:22 -0600, David Southwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 02 December 2007 06:41:12 Dan Langille wrote: On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: 3. What is the single best aspect of the current system? Good people doing the heavy lifting 4. What is the single worst aspect of the current system? Too much talk from people not willing to do the heavy lifting. 8. How long have you used FreeBSD and/or UNIX in general? Since 1998. Well in this case the people doing the talking are also committing themselves to the lifting so I guess you would say here that the advocates of change are on the side of the angels. I trust you are not dedicated to becoming a permanent member of the opposition!! If so I might be tempted to say the worst aspect of the current system is that there are too many people determined to deny the need for change irrespective of merit. Sad, I second on Dan's answer for #4 question. It's not that we opposite it. It's faith that we don't have. It's not first time for people to keep talk with no action. It's called bikeshed. As I said to Dan this is a fancy sidestepping of the issue for one who has not even taken time to respond to the survey seriously (even privately) - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHU6UN358R5LPuPvsRAkKyAKDny+LyJFdxlL1m0Kds0JANgF/HXACgpT9r 8TYG+fcUtR/SSSHK5kyNykM= =PSdd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
