Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:36:34 -0800
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To:        Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports
Message-ID:  <20031111223634.GA29397@xor.obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <2E850FE8-1494-11D8-BD31-003065ABFD92@mac.com>
References:  <1068471598.38101.77.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110163623.GC93583@procyon.firepipe.net> <1068495958.690.72.camel@leguin> <53EC784E-13C5-11D8-AD24-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com> <20031111021929.GA17050@xor.obsecurity.org> <73E9F604-1472-11D8-BD31-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <20031111183540.GA26599@xor.obsecurity.org> <3FB13AA5.7090209@fillmore-labs.com> <2E850FE8-1494-11D8-BD31-003065ABFD92@mac.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:12:47PM -0500, Charles Swiger wrote:

> If someone could do a "cvs checkout -r RELENG_4_5" against the ports=20
> CVS repo, and update to the latest version of each port which is known=20
> to build on their version of the OS, that user would obtain=20
> significantly more benefit than being told that they need to upgrade=20
> their OS in order to use newer port versions.

I think you're missing the point.  No-one disagrees that it would be
wonderful if users of old releases could continue to use up-to-date
software.

The problem is that making that work requires a *lot* of effort, and
there just isn't any to spare from the ranks of the people who are
currently doing the bulk of the work to keep the Ports Collection
useful and relevant, given that it's already a continual uphill
struggle to keep up with the growth of the ports collection and the
demands placed on it by freebsd (support for new architectures, new
releases - soon we'll have 3 branches to support, etc).

You just can't ignore this by pointing out that the goal is
worthwhile: any major change that puts a significant extra burden on
existing contributors is essentially a non-starter.

If you think the Ports Collection should maintain certain higher
standards with respect to supporting old releases, you personally are
going to have to put in the effort to ensure that it comes to pass.

That means keeping a testbed of systems for testing whatever
combinations of OS and software you want to support, and putting in
the effort on a long-term basis to support this.  If you can show that
you (and any other interested parties) are going to stick with this
for a reasonable term, then we can talk about what we (FreeBSD) can do
to support your efforts.

Kris

--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/sWRyWry0BWjoQKURAgZJAJ0a3+XrBlxO0/0H6ybXdHfV8Z3IuACeMMTD
sXNOx6RKwbDKcx4pTb8WBJs=
=P63D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031111223634.GA29397>