Hi! > >> On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > >>> I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because > >>> I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. [...] > >Note that there are over 26000 ports, over 1600 port maintainers and > >hundreds of third party projects get updated every day. While the port > >maintainers spend a good portion of their spare time trying to keep it > >building there will be times that some ports fail to build. > > Which, I think you must agree, is a prima facie case for > lengthening the release cycle.
While I can understand where this comes from, it can be read as "slow down the world, it's too fast" 8-} > Perhaps The Major Problem currently is that the makefile goes and > fetches code chunks from sources that are out of our control. [...] > Contrast that with how it would be if the maintainer got one copy > of every potential chunk at the beginning of the cycle and stored > it in ports so that everyone who builds the port builds against a > known-good set of bits. It would be both more stable and faster. > But that's not how it's done. Why not? As far as I know: The idea was to track upstream, not try to become upstream. Otherwise the changeset (distfiles) repositories would be come much larger to maintain on the FreeBSD side. -- p...@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
