On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Václav Haisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> What if the ports infrastructure had additional flag, say EXPERIMENTAL. >> Ports marked as such would not build/install by default unless something, >> say ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_PORTS=yes, was defined. That way we (people >> interested in the port) can work on improving it without burdening users >> that want just stable things. >> >> Without existing port, even if broken one, nobody can easily start helping, >> unless the person wants to start over from scratch, which is considerably >> harder than starting from semi-finished/working port. > > Václav, > Given experience with the ports tree, it's such a large beast > that doing something like that would be unreasonable. This isn't > Gentoo's portage tree where packages can be masked and unmasked at > will. Adding an EXPERIMENTAL flag would just complicate things a lot. > However, like back in the day (last year) when major changes > affected the ports tree when X.org 7.2 was being imported, Florent > published a snapshot of the tree (IIRC) and allowed people to verify > whether or not it was stable. Then again the main ports tree was also > frozen, so meh... > Operating with a separate Perl ports dir (lang/perl5.10) than > mainline (lang/perl) would also be helpful I would think... > -Garrett
s/unreasonable/reasonable/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"