svn commit: r364739 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/syslog-ng-devel sysutils/syslog-ng-devel/files

[Cy Schubert]

In message <53EA6EBB.2010802 at marino.st>, John Marino writes:
> On 8/12/2014 21:39, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > Author: cy
> > Date: Tue Aug 12 19:39:33 2014
> > New Revision: 364739
> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/364739
> > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r364739/
> > 
> > Log:
> >   Reintroduce syslog-ng-devel for 3.6.0alpha2.
> >   
> >   Submitted by:	Peter Czanik <peter.czanik at balabit.com> (syslog-ng upli
> ne)
> 
> 
> Do Ports really need alpha quality -devel ports in the collection?
> 
> If it were up to me I'd purge 90% of our -devel ports.  I tried to start
> a conversation about a policy for these with portmgr, but as usual, only
> one person responded.  I'd still like to have that conversation though.
>  This -devel port trend is disturbing.

Some people actually use this stuff, bleeding edge -CURRENT with bleeding 
edge ports. If people want to try out and test new software on the latest 
-CURRENT, by the time the rest of us use the release-ready versions most of 
the bugs have been ironed out. At the expense of a little repo bloat our 
upline and users receive a better product in the end.

I personally have used some -devel ports because I've needed a feature not 
present in the GA version.

If submitted by our upline, as in this case, maintaining good relations 
with said upline is worth something too.

In regard to some devel ports, e.g. ntp-devel, unfortunately our upline 
only supports and provides security fixes for the devel version.

All in all, I think there's value with including good quality pre-release 
software in ports, which syslog-ng-devel and ntp-devel are.


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at komquats.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org

	The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.