commit new port - transcode

[Chuck Remes]

On May 17, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Boey Maun Suang wrote:

> Hi Chuck and David,
>
> On 17/05/2007, at 00:14, Chuck Remes wrote:
>
>> On May 16, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a compelling reason to use cvs HEAD for this port?
>>
>> Yes. The upcoming 1.1.0 release can only be accessed from HEAD.  
>> Plus, this is the best way to make sure that, as the code reaches  
>> release status, it doesn't break under OSX. The other maintainer  
>> and I are keeping a close eye on things to make sure OSX remains a  
>> solidly supported target platform. As soon as 1.1.0 is officially  
>> released, we will update the Portfile to grab a tarball.
>>
>> There is an older release (1.0.3) which could potentially be used,  
>> but it's a dead-end for support and functionality. All new  
>> development is focused on the 1.1.x releases.
>>
>> In the interim, HEAD is safe. The project developers have a policy  
>> of not breaking the build so we are (somewhat) assured the port  
>> will function properly for folks. Again, this is temporary.
>>
>> Is this sufficient?
>
> My concern with tracking HEAD in a public portfile (which is, I  
> believe, the primary stated reason for discouraging it) is to do  
> with non-reproducibility of builds.  I imagine that it would be  
> much easier to diagnose a problem if we know exactly what was in  
> the source files via a tag, rather than having to try to find out  
> when exactly they installed the port (particularly if it's a bug  
> that is important but whose cause gets obfuscated by later changes,  
> though I don't know how likely that is).
[snip]

Thanks for all the feedback. I'll take a look at introducing a date  
tag so we can get reproducible builds. Once I get that working, we'll  
just update the Portfile twice a month until the transcode developers  
put out the final release. I'll privately track their daily  
submissions to make sure they don't break OSX builds too badly. :-)

cr