ru.unix.bsd

 
 - RU.UNIX.BSD ------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Andrey Slusar                        2:467/126      19 Sep 2006  20:48:29
 To : All
 Subject :   ([HEADSUP] new portmgr recommendation about adding new p
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

 
 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
 Subject: [HEADSUP] new portmgr recommendation about adding new ports
 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon)
 To: ports@FreeBSD.org
 Cc: 
 X-Sent: 11 hours, 41 minutes, 29 seconds ago
 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
 
 Here is the result of a discussion amongst the portmgr members during the
 past few weeks, in response to the large number of new ports added to the
 Ports Collection in the last few months.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Recently we've seen evidence of an increase in the number of ports that
 are submitted "just because the software is there", and not out of any
 underlying need for the port to exist.
 
 When considering a new port, portmgr would like to ask you to please apply
 the following criterion:
 
   New ports should only be submitted by someone who is actually using the
   software and will continue to use the port to maintain the software.
 
 Adding a port of software that you do not personally use, or do not use
 within the FreeBSD ports collection (such as an xpi browser extension that
 you manage using firefox and not using the Ports Collection), is not a good
 tradeoff between adding functionality and adding complexity.
 
 Each additional port requires resources, both machine (from the package
 building system) and people (to inspect the results from the package
 building system).  This is especially true when you consider that we, as
 a team, are all trying to keep ports buildable on on 4 different branches
 and 5 different architectures (with increasing interest in arm and powerpc).
 
 Past experience shows that these ports often quickly fall behind as new
 versions are released, and when build breakages occur, they do not get
 fixed.  In some other cases, some of our contributors try to keep ports
 viable by fixes and updating long after their real usefulness has passed,
 and that time could be better spent on the more worthwhile ports.
 
 While no one is suggesting that we go the route some projects have with
 some kind of 'gateway' process for approving new ports, at some point the
 number of ports will simply be too great for our infrastructure (package
 building system, sending PRs via email).  Some common sense should help
 to keep us from reaching that point.
 
 As a reminder, the Ports Collection already has 198 ports marked BROKEN*,
 and 4291 unmaintained ones.  We really don't need to add to these numbers.
 
 To summarize, we simply can't support all the possible applications out
 on the Internet, so we need to use common sense to try to keep it down to
 a maintainable number.
 
 mcl
 
 (*: on i386-6; the numbers are higher on the other architectures, and -CURRENT)
 _______________________________________________
 freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
 
 -- 
 Regards,
 Andrey.
 --- Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.5-b27 (i386--freebsd)
  * Origin: Santinel (2:467/126)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор