Care and Feeding

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Care and Feeding

Chris Bennett-3
Please go read:
https://www.openbsd.org/papers/vbsdcon2019-care-and-feeding.pdf

"There are 10715 packages for amd64 in snapshots"

"There aren't even 100 OpenBSD porters"

So that means that for every porter, there are more than 100 ports
sitting out there.

Thats. Not. OK.

Thats. Not. The. Only. Arch.


I've got recent port videos/etc. open in Firefox tabs.
I've got the Porters Handbook open in a tab, too.

I'm going to watch and read those.
Going to, not did. Watched some stupid music videos instead.

Ports have to be done on -current.
OK. That was hard (sorta). Now there is sysupgrade. I've seen some
criticism of it. But I had to have it. So I upgraded to -current.
Worth it! Do it!

6.6 release is coming soon. It has it. But why wait? Release and -stable
are not -current. Never will be or were.

My junky laptop is amd64. Junky server is i386.
Junky is cheap. Sysupgrade is easy.

Don't be stupid and lazy like me.

Port something. Update something. Test something.

Chris Bennett


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Care and Feeding

Andras Farkas
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:34 PM Chris Bennett
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Port something.
Last time I ported something I got no reply and gave up.
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=148150979321732&w=2
> Update something.
Similar story there:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=156583823801955&w=2
https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/ports/math/hoc/

I'd be willing to try again, though.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Care and Feeding

Stuart Henderson
Re the first submission you pointed out, here is the comment:

- programmable MUD client, but beta rather than stable

This doesn't sound like something we want in ports.

(Also in general, new ports are always trickier because there's a policy of
always needing a second developer ok to commit them, so you need to get two
dev's interested in it!)


Second one: diff please! Don't forget the REVISION bump.

--
Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting.

On 28 September 2019 06:15:12 Andras Farkas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:34 PM Chris Bennett
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Port something.
> Last time I ported something I got no reply and gave up.
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=148150979321732&w=2
>> Update something.
> Similar story there:
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=156583823801955&w=2
> https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/ports/math/hoc/
>
> I'd be willing to try again, though.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Care and Feeding

Chris Bennett-3
In reply to this post by Chris Bennett-3
I've filed a bug report for a problem with amdgpu firmware on -current.
All the versions I've used that had that new firmware.

Simple workaround for the moment if you get it.
Causes boot to crash. I have to poweroff by hand.
I saw that others could ssh into and shutdown.

boot -c
disable amdgpu
quit

Anytime someone runs -current or installs new hardware,
boot -c or boot -s are your beloved friends.

If you haven't learned how to use those, learn.
If you don't know how to use the editor ed(1), learn.
It's ancient software. It will save your butt under the worst
conditions.

Whether you want to port or not, learn those things. Please.

Chris Bennett


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Care and Feeding

Andras Farkas
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:07 AM Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Re the first submission you pointed out, here is the comment:
> - programmable MUD client, but beta rather than stable
> This doesn't sound like something we want in ports.
TinyFugue is a weird thing.  Both tf4 and tf5 (which should be
considered separate ports/packages) haven't been touched by the
developer since January 2007, over a decade ago.  They're
unmaintained, except in a variety of forks of which none are an
obvious most popular successor.
Because of the lack of a clear successor and lack of motivation to
change ("if it's not totally broken and unusable, don't fix it!")
people still use _both_ of those often.  TinyFugue's sourceforge
supplies users tf5 by default.
Some OSes/packagemanagers have only tf4 (openbsd, netbsd), some have
only tf5 (freebsd, fedora), and some have both tf4 and tf5 available
as separate packages (debian and all debian-based distros)
I checked all those stats myself, but this link may be useful too:
https://repology.org/project/tinyfugue/versions
Is it possible that tf4 could be removed from ports?  It's definitely
unmaintained, but still used by the people who prefer it over tf5.
(though I make a point to only use tf5, since tf4 doesn't support TLS.
However, I myself don't use tf as often as I used to, even though I
still use it)
In my own opinion, I think it's smarter to have no tinyfugue than to
not have both tinyfugue versions.  But that's just me, and definitely
because I care a lot about secure connections to the MU*s I use.
> (Also in general, new ports are always trickier because there's a policy of
> always needing a second developer ok to commit them, so you need to get two
> dev's interested in it!)
Ahaa, I see.
> Second one: diff please! Don't forget the REVISION bump.
Did it. :3  Sent it back in its original thread.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Care and Feeding

Markus Lude-3
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 05:42:08PM -0400, Andras Farkas wrote:

Hi Andras,

I don't understand what your goal is.

A few years ago you wrote me you would like to make a port of tinyfuge
5.  I suggested to make a new port tinyfugue5 and maybe name the binary
tf5 instead of tf.


I'm MAINTAINER of net/tinyfuge which uses version 4.

As screen handling and others changed a lot between the two versions I
prefer the old style. Thats why the port use tf 4.

> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:07 AM Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Re the first submission you pointed out, here is the comment:
> > - programmable MUD client, but beta rather than stable
> > This doesn't sound like something we want in ports.
> TinyFugue is a weird thing.  Both tf4 and tf5 (which should be
> considered separate ports/packages) haven't been touched by the
> developer since January 2007, over a decade ago.  They're
> unmaintained, except in a variety of forks of which none are an
> obvious most popular successor.
> Because of the lack of a clear successor and lack of motivation to
> change ("if it's not totally broken and unusable, don't fix it!")
> people still use _both_ of those often.  TinyFugue's sourceforge
> supplies users tf5 by default.
> Some OSes/packagemanagers have only tf4 (openbsd, netbsd), some have
> only tf5 (freebsd, fedora), and some have both tf4 and tf5 available
> as separate packages (debian and all debian-based distros)
> I checked all those stats myself, but this link may be useful too:
> https://repology.org/project/tinyfugue/versions

First, I think your intention is to have a tf 5 port.

> Is it possible that tf4 could be removed from ports?  It's definitely
> unmaintained, but still used by the people who prefer it over tf5.

Now you want tf 4 removed?

According to sourceforge both version were last modified in 2007.

> (though I make a point to only use tf5, since tf4 doesn't support TLS.
> However, I myself don't use tf as often as I used to, even though I
> still use it)
> In my own opinion, I think it's smarter to have no tinyfugue than to
> not have both tinyfugue versions.  But that's just me, and definitely
> because I care a lot about secure connections to the MU*s I use.

You may use tf 4 with stunnel.

> > (Also in general, new ports are always trickier because there's a policy of
> > always needing a second developer ok to commit them, so you need to get two
> > dev's interested in it!)
> Ahaa, I see.
> > Second one: diff please! Don't forget the REVISION bump.
> Did it. :3  Sent it back in its original thread.

Regards
Markus

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Care and Feeding

Andras Farkas
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 6:15 AM Markus Lude <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't understand what your goal is.
My goal was to make a tf5 port, but since I use a shell script
(involving xterm and nc) more often than I use tf5 these days (though
I still use tf5, especially on lower-end machines) I think I'll just
let things stay as they are now, and not do anything as for this.
> Now you want tf 4 removed?
I was mostly just curious how OpenBSD people handle abandoned software
in ports.  (both tf5 and tf4 are equally abandoned)