From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 23 13:11:52 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C526FDA478B for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baho-utot@columbus.rr.com) Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cdptpa-oedge", Issuer "cdptpa-oedge" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 830CB84F45 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:11:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baho-utot@columbus.rr.com) Received: from [65.186.81.207] ([65.186.81.207:49543] helo=raspberrypi.bildanet.com) by cdptpa-omsmta02 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.6.9.48312 r(Core:3.6.9.0)) with ESMTP id 82/49-20123-6931D495; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:11:50 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.143] (helo=desktop.example.com) by raspberrypi.bildanet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1dOONJ-0001Lj-UT for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:11:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <1498157001.2235.1.camel@gmail.com> <1498206372.2506.1.camel@gmail.com> <666bfe8c-f27d-2c11-2a4a-07da43bb7931@FreeBSD.org> From: Baho Utot Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:11:49 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <666bfe8c-f27d-2c11-2a4a-07da43bb7931@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.7:25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:11:52 -0000 On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote: > On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.david@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: >>> Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if >>> somehow >>> you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via >>> some >>> (as yet unspecified) mechanism? >> >> I've also think about that but I'm not sure if it's easier than having >> frozen release branches. > > I usually stay away from this kind of threads, but I'd like to point out > a very simple concept that has not been expressed. > > The ports tree repository is fully open source, available via subversion > from the FreeBSD project and also mirrored on github. There is > absolutely nothing stopping you(and anyone with time, skill and > willingness to help you) from starting your fork from whichever source > and using whatever tool you prefer, creating the branches you're > describing. > > If your model works fine I'm quite sure the FreeBSD community and > project will be quite happy to embrace it. > > As stated, the FreeBSD project (core, portmgr and committers) perceive a > manpower problem in relation to implementing what you describe. In this > thread it has been stated that such a manpower problem does not really > exist. I cannot think of a better way to show there actually is no > manpower problem than creating a working example of such a workflow > maintained by just a few people with little effort, as you said repeatedly. > > On other hand demanding and/or insisting that others implement your idea > when they clearly disagree with you is not very constructive. > > In relation to the suggestion of a stable or release ports branch: > > I'd also like a ports branch where things are merged only when really > needed, some kind of "stable" branch. I don't like the release way you > describe, but maybe it could actually work as an option, but I too see > the manpower problem. An actual working proof of concept like I > described above is the only thing that would persuade me I'm wrong about > that. > > (I could try to help with such an experiment but I don't know how much > time I could really spare for it) > Ok, since you are taking the lead on this...... When do we start? Where shall I post my repository to? And updates? Should the start be for the 12.0 branch or should earlier? I can start on packaging the base system some time August is that ok with you and will it fit your schedule?