dports

[John Marino]

On 1/24/2014 05:54, Vitaly Shevtsov wrote:
> Why are packages in dports outdated? FreeBSD's one has i3wm 4.7 but
> DragonFly's is still 4.6.

As is usual with the "It doesn't work!" complaints, the person always
seems to fail to provide obvious and critical information, such as:

What platform?  i386 or x86-64
What package set?   3.4, 3.6, or experimental 3.8?

If I assume x86-64, 3.8, in this case, i3 may have been in there.  It
was introduced in Dec 23 and x86-64/3.8 packages were produced on Dec
28.  That's a very short window but it was conceivable that i3 4.7 could
have made that last batch.

Except it failed to build:
http://muscles.dragonflybsd.org/bulk/latest-per-pkg/i3/4.7/bleeding-edge-potential.log

We something doesn't build, the previous built one stays in dports.  We
figure that a working i3 4.6 is better than a broken and unbuildable I3 4.7.

Patches of course, are always welcome.

FYI: A lag of 3 to 4 weeks is not considered "outdated" in any way.
There is a proofing lag, where FreeBSD ports are tested and if they
pass, are included in dports.  Then there is a building lag.  AFTER that
point, a builder has to use the latest dports and actually build the
packages.  Building is mostly automatic once started, but there is some
manual attending needed, especially when key ports in the proofing stage
fail.  That takes a tremendous amount of volunteer team, therefore it
may only happen on 3-4 week periods.  Even longer when FreeBSD Ports has
impactful changes (as they frequently do these days) and I "wait it
out", I don't try to build anything until their tree stabilizes.  The
conclusion: Your categorization of a package 3 weeks behind a source
update as "outdated" is unrealistic, and you need to adjust your
expectations.  Pkgsrc has quarterlies, so that's a 3 month window, as an
example.

Regards,
John