*-devel ports

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Feb 6, 2008, at 22:21, Thomas de Grivel wrote:

> 2008/2/5, js:
>
>> On Feb 5, 2008 9:57 PM, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
>>
>>> 2008/2/4, Vincent Lefevre:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-02-04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the suggestion to rename all *-devel ports to *- 
>>>>> latest, in
>>>>> light of the above change, the name "latest" would indeed seem  
>>>>> to be
>>>>> clearer. It would also remove any potential confusion with the  
>>>>> RPM -
>>>>> devel packages, which IMHO would be quite a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> I think this would be a good idea.
>>>>
>>>>> I guess this is as good a time as any to bring up the "tin" ports:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ port search ^tin$ ^tin-
>>>>> tin                            news/tin       1.8.3        A  
>>>>> threaded
>>>>> NNTP and spool based UseNet newsreader
>>>>> tin-devel                      news/tin-devel 1.7.10       A  
>>>>> threaded
>>>>> NNTP and spool based UseNet newsreader
>>>>> tin-recent                     news/tin-recent 1.9.2        A  
>>>>> Usenet
>>>>> newsreader
>>>>> $
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, ignore the version numbers shown for a minute. Based on  
>>>>> comments in
>>>>> the header of "tin-recent" (copied below), it seems to be the
>>>>> maintainer's intention (hey, that's you, Vincent!) that "tin"  
>>>>> is the
>>>>> latest released version, "tin-devel" is the latest development  
>>>>> version,
>>>>> and "tin-recent" is the more recent of the two. It looks like  
>>>>> someone has
>>>>> updated tin-recent but forgotten to update tin-devel. So, to match
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK, tin-devel is no longer maintained (and perhaps no longer  
>>>> used).

Well then tin-devel should be removed and tin-recent should be  
renamed to tin-devel, for consistency with other ports.


>>>>> Vincent's new proposals, "tin-devel" gets deleted and "tin- 
>>>>> recent" gets
>>>>> renamed to "tin-latest", yes?
>>>>
>>>> +1 for this new policy.
>>>
>>> Then we would have to warn new users about -latest not being so  
>>> stable

No problem. That's what the guide is for, isn't it?


>>> because intuitively I would like the latest version to be installed
>>> but what retains me the the previous one is that "it just works".  
>>> For
>>> the sake of stability I would have -unstable marked clearly, so that
>>> the users dont expect too much magic with -latest.
>>
>> I think -devel is better.
>> For one thing, it's more intuitive.

It was proposed that -devel ports should be updated to the latest  
stable version, if the latest stable version is newer than the latest  
development version. If we act on this proposal, then "-latest" is  
more intuitive than "-devel".


>> Second, this naming convension is already used in FreeBSD
>> so at least BSD users prefers -devel one.
>>
>> By the way, I think MacPorts is not for everyone,
>> I mean, it's mostly for developer or kinds of techies, right?
>> So  IMHO providing an easy access to the latest, greatest software is
>> more important thant prevent users from using might-be-unstable- 
>> software.
>> Bad idea?
>
> Of course, I did not mean to prevent anyone from doing anything ! Just
> make it the default if not proven unstable, or mark it as unstable (or
> devel) if it is. I agree with you that the latest version must be
> available by default, just what do you do when it is broken or breaks
> other ports or break the system ? Hey, I dont just hack programs, I
> also use them sometimes  ^^;
>
> By the way, I'm a kind of a techie but I also often run into end-users
> who end up having macports installed by me because open source should
> be for everyone and I just wish they use it on their own and do not
> bug me (or you !) about it every time they install/upgrade something.
> Maybe we lack resources or feel like hackers but I'm sure we should
> definitely not deliberately make things unintuitive / uneasy.

MacPorts currently is a bit complicated for casual users. A goal is  
to improve this. Therefore, we shouldn't now do anything that would  
make it more difficult for casual users. Not saying that any of these  
proposals do. Just, keep in mind: even though most of us here now are  
techies, the reason we're here is not just to use MacPorts but also  
to improve it to the point that non-techies will feel just as  
comfortable with it.


> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, the development version is sometimes less buggy
>> than the stable version. This is the case of mutt, zsh and lynx
>> (for which there have been recommendations to use the development
>> versions).
>
> Is there a reason for keeping an older version non-devel even when the
> -devel version is more stable ? Why not upgrade the default to the
> -devel version in this case ? My point of view is : have the latest
> version as the default, unless it is quite broken in some way, in this
> case make it a -devel version.

It's not really the place of a MacPorts port maintainer to second- 
guess the developer of the software regarding what version is stable  
enough for a user to use. Some of our non-devel ports do install  
development versions because the latest releases don't work at all or  
are years out of date, say. But generally this should not be the  
case. If you think the latest stable release of a program is not  
suitable, then you should push the developers to make a new release  
that is.


> Anyway, -devel should mean "for developers" right ?

"-devel" does not mean "for developers". It means it is a development  
version, for anyone who feels they need this rather than the latest  
stable version.