From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 3 10:14:14 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F1E1065674; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:14:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com) Received: from fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com (fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com [69.55.229.149]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143378FC08; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:14:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.15.220] (unknown [118.175.84.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fss.sandiego.ateamservers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BF9DB9F22; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:14:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FCB38F2.4030505@ateamsystems.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:14:10 +0700 From: Adam Strohl Organization: A-Team Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erich References: <4FCA0B5F.5010500@digsys.bg> <4FCA20C5.6010901@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <2421561.4aJcXPZZxh@x220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <2421561.4aJcXPZZxh@x220.ovitrap.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "O. Hartmann" , "freebs >> Current FreeBSD" , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:14:14 -0000 On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: > What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? > > I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. > > I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying "need" for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective).