* Roman Bogorodskiy:
2. Port tree is unstable
IMO, port tree is not very stable. I mean: we're all human and
more or less often make mistakes and inaccurate commits. So you
cannot be sure that if you cvsup/portsnap your tree, it will not
break something (e.g. because of some typo).
Kris Kennaway wrote:
If this comes up every few months, then it's really needed, isn't it?
No, it means that a handful of people think that it would be great if
the rest of the people all started doing more work to support their
idea.
I'm not the only person who wants to have stable
On 8/18/06, Roman Bogorodskiy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not the only person who wants to have stable ports tree and binary
packages. Actually, about 90% people whom I asked about that said it
would be nice.
OpenBSD does exactly what you want - a branched, stable ports tree,
and a preference
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 10:45:37AM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
If this comes up every few months, then it's really needed, isn't it?
No, it means that a handful of people think that it would be great if
the rest of the people all started doing more work to
在 2006-08-18五的 10:50 +0400，Roman Bogorodskiy写道：
Paul Schmehl wrote:
As a maintainer of several ports, I can assure you that I would not be
interested in doing *more* work on the ports than I already am. And my
ports are relatively simple ones. Imagine the guys who do KDE and Gnome
When/if we get a new VCS, where branching is not as painful
as it is now, I expect it to be used extensively by developers.
Projects can be then brought back into our main repo from
marcuscom, p4 and other local repos. We often work on some
things together and/or from multiple locations. It
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:21:38PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
When/if we get a new VCS, where branching is not as painful
as it is now, I expect it to be used extensively by developers.
Projects can be then brought back into our main repo from
marcuscom, p4 and other local repos. We
* Roman Bogorodskiy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
2. Port tree is unstable
IMO, port tree is not very stable. I mean: we're all human and more or
less often make mistakes and inaccurate commits. So you cannot be sure
that if you cvsup/portsnap your tree, it will not break something
(e.g.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 04:21:38PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
There are severe logistical problems: Ports are currently expected to
build for at least 3 different src branches, with between 2 and 6
different architectures in each. Multiply this by over 15,000 ports
and that process
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:39:55AM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:33:35PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
II Solutions
Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I
propose: having HEAD and STABLE
Kris Kennaway wrote:
I'm not going to support this effort as part of the CVS ports tree
(for the usual reasons when this comes up every few months), but
If this comes up every few months, then it's really needed, isn't it?
No, it means that a handful of people think that it would be great if
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:33:35PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
II Solutions
Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I
propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it,
so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:28:36PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I think someone (kuriyama?) was in fact already doing this, so getting
the project started would not involve much work.
Yes, that was already set up, but does not appear to be active. I don't
know if the link was supposed to be
to have such errors in general, and
we can do nothing with it, but there are a lot of silly errors which
could be avoided and you definitely don't deal with on a stable system.
II Solutions
Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I
propose: having HEAD and STABLE
with
messy ports that require a compatibility layer. But native builds cause
problems very rarely.
II Solutions
Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I
propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it,
so e.g. not to confuse with src
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:28:36PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I think someone (kuriyama?) was in fact already doing this, so getting
the project started would not involve much work.
Yes, that was already set up, but does not appear to be active. I don't
know if
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:33:35PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
II Solutions
Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I
propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it,
so e.g. not to confuse with src
17 matches
Mail list logo
