From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Sat Jun 24 07:35:30 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
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 8A2ACD99CAC
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:35:30 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mueller6722@twc.com)
Received: from dnvrco-oedge-vip.email.rr.com
 (dnvrco-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.73.231])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "dnvrco-oedge-vip.email.rr.com",
 Issuer "dnvrco-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A971EEE
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:35:29 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mueller6722@twc.com)
Received: from [74.134.208.22] ([74.134.208.22:56942] helo=localhost)
 by dnvrco-omsmta01 (envelope-from <mueller6722@twc.com>)
 (ecelerity 3.6.9.48312 r(Core:3.6.9.0)) with ESMTP
 id ED/02-03935-A361E495; Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:35:22 +0000
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:35:18 +0000
Message-ID: <ED.02.03935.A361E495@dnvrco-omsmta01>
From: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller6722@twc.com>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
References: <CAO+PfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD+8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net>
 <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com>
 <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net>
 <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com>
 <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com>
 <n8eokc5fafda8gedtvbhh7i0qdk83gur5q@4ax.com> <594C4663.5080209@quip.cz>
 <09384577-ed7e-d142-43f3-0a08f5d21056@freebsd.org>
 <5eabe1d2-85a3-f7eb-a1ab-dc5552eb70fe@gjunka.com>
 <fa33d0e8-67cb-ab06-9a58-26dafe250f6c@freebsd.org>
 <6d35f70b-17f2-d864-68ed-a3637cdc9fbf@gjunka.com>
 <63e5c4e30a60d51c5a068177b9483206@acheronmedia.hr>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version
X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.64.6:25
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:35:30 -0000

from Vlad K:

> On 2017-06-23 23:09, Grzegorz Junka wrote:

> > Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest
> > quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would
> > mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would
> > additionally need to apply selected patches to those OS version
> > branches?

> "OS version branches" would be a complete waste of time and resources, and it
> would remove some level of separation/independence between the base and ports.

> The crux of the problem here is so called "stable ports", not necessarily
> tying them to the life cycle of a base release. It doesn't make sense to tie
> version of a port to the base release. Especially with the new releng support
> schedule that would mean 5 years per major version which is quite a lot.
(snip)

I personally can't see the rationale of many OS version branches of ports: far too much work.

I had the thought of something like that for (NetBSD) pkgsrc: a very tall order, considering that pkgsrc has been ported to many OSes besides NetBSD.

Imagine a separate branch of pkgsrc for every version and branch of NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.

I only follow the current branch of FreeBSD ports and pkgsrc, though now I have also become interested in pkgsrc-synth.

Tom