Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

[John Marino <netbsd%marino.st@localhost>]

On 5/25/2012 10:29, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> John Marino<netbsd%marino.st@localhost>  writes:
> > The point is that it doesn't work for everybody.
>
> Yes, so what?

So it broadcasts to the users that pkgsrc quality control sucks, and 
also invokes Animal Farm ideas where some users are more equal than others.


> At least each fifth package doesn't build for everybody.
> Even less packages work. That's not the reason to remove them.
>
> > The purpose of a packaging system is to build packages.  The
> > package in question is failing its purpose.
>
> No, it isn't. It does build package. Get the distfile and might build it.


I'm sorry, I'm going to continue to believe that packages that require 
distfiles that are illegal to obtain have no place in a package system 
that serves open source operating systems.



> In this particular case you're fighting to remove packages that might be
> still useful for some people in order to appease your unusual tastes.
> Removal of packages doesn't fix anything except creating obstacles to
> people who are or might be using them. Removal of leaf packages doesn't
> have any impact besides numbers in bulk build report. And these numbers
> are the only thing that constitutes the "problem" you're trying to "solve."

Yes, my "unusual tastes" of expecting something to work as advertised. 
I don't like the fact that there are really no standards at all for what 
packages have membership, or the fact that a single person can say "I 
want to keep that package" when 99 people want to get rid it. 
Establish some clear standards and prune packages when they violate 
those standards and stop taking a poll to find a single person that 
wants to keep the garbage to justify keeping it.



> Seriously, you should really find better place to waste your efforts than
> reducing number of broken packages from around 470 to around 470 with no
> other effect visible or invisible.

Right, because based on my commits over the last 6 months, that's all 
I've been concentrating on.



> > Not that WIP would suffer if you pushed them
> > there, that thing seems to unregulated in every way.  More
> > garbage would just be a drop in the bucket.
>
> Yes, WIP would suffer.
>
> It carries enough stable packages that would be in pkgsrc already, and
> enough software that could be, if only standards were a bit relaxed.
> But instead of pushing stable software from WIP to pkgsrc, just like it
> was meant originally, the opposite is proposed.

LOL.  "if only standards were a bit relaxed?"
How can they get lower?  Maybe it's hard to get packages in, but it's 
impossible to get them out.  There's not even a formal way of doing it 
-- posting on a mail list, "Hey, how about deleting this one?"  is a joke!

How about a form that you can fill out that *has* to be evaluated formally?

I know some might be insulted that I think there are little in the way 
of "standards" in pkgsrc, but I can't help how I see it.  I'm doing my 
part to raise that, but there's only so much I can do.

John