Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:13:15 -0500 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating "Bash" Message-ID: <20130112081315.2c3137e3@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20130112123039.GE1359@glenbarber.us> References: <20130103083249.5708bb78@scorpio> <20130108141545.GA30241@dragon.NUXI.org> <20130108201200.GE1727@glenbarber.us> <CADLo838Z-i-oid29vizRz4S9A8NQ5qitHMpgsZERHxw7abczxA@mail.gmail.com> <20130112123039.GE1359@glenbarber.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:30:39 -0500 Glen Barber articulated: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:04:32AM +0000, Chris Rees wrote: > > >> It will be once the dust settles over the 9.1 release. > > > > > > I think the dust has settled. > > > > I agree, but I'm not clear on what the "dust" was. > > > > Same here. As I do not see any, I assume it has either settled or > never existed at all. > > I like to refer to the phenomenon as "illuminatiware." I have a suggestion that might please at least a few users of Bash. I believe it could follow the "Postfix" model. "sahil@FreeBSD.org" maintains the "mail/postfix-current" port and keeps it in sync with Postfix releases in virtual real time. He also maintains the normal stable release version of Postfix, "mail/postfix". Bash has not been kept in sync with the stable releases for several years now. I realize that "obrien@FreeBSD.org" is undoubtedly extremely busy and does not have the time to spend on testing and maintaining this port on a daily basis. I would therefore suggest that he create a "bash-current" or what ever nomenclature suits him and keeps that port in sync with the latest patches, etcetera of Bash as they become available. "Bash" patches are released as part of their stable releases anyway so there should not be a problem. A simple warning that this port has not been declared "SAFE" by the maintainer is all that would be need. A user would therefore be fully aware that there might be serious implications to the use of this port. At some point, when the maintainer feels it is advisable to move the "current" branch into the "stable" branch, he my do so. I was also thinking of another option; however, I do not know if it is feasible. It would require having a base level set for the patch level -- in this case 37. Have that as the default. Then have an option to download all available patches and update bash. I don't know how this would be handles, but it might eliminate some of the rather long waits between releases in the ports system. Well, that is my 2¢ on the matter. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130112081315.2c3137e3>