From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 2 00:09:49 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B333A106564A for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 00:09:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f54.google.com (mail-ew0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440968FC14 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 00:09:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy1 with SMTP id 1so1613540ewy.13 for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:09:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cjB9r14mxvF1l7c300JeD3HQndMFTew8NcK1ei+Khmo=; b=OFBrYPAdO09ZIPxEXcysD5sEVMieJ9xFBquw/XwL3K2W47JpWqfkkleib6Niz5Yl0L 6hHPltMAp44uE/sJt7BuY1U36yjK28iyjtxQ6Bs2WkkHEYa1VPpCEd4o67JZ3yfkF4xt ARIBeAwKeBUXiHlzlT1mGmt4LluOyAVIcAoU4= Received: by 10.213.108.138 with SMTP id f10mr212283ebp.97.1314922188286; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (87-194-105-247.bethere.co.uk [87.194.105.247]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d12sm120259eeb.8.2011.09.01.17.09.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 01:09:37 +0100 From: RW To: ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110902010937.12d07e77@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <1314913660.1744.136.camel@xenon> References: <20110828181356.GD277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828183300.GX17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20110828184542.GE277@magic.hamla.org> <20110828152234.54cc9fac@seibercom.net> <20110828193046.GA668@magic.hamla.org> <1314564889.82067.89.camel@xenon> <4E5AB672.4020607@FreeBSD.org> <1314585798.82067.338.camel@xenon> <4E5B0EFB.6000900@FreeBSD.org> <1314596096.82067.419.camel@xenon> <20110901092349.GB9509@lonesome.com> <1314913660.1744.136.camel@xenon> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.5; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Ports system quality X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:09:49 -0000 On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:47:40 +0200 Michal Varga wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 04:23 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > > In that case, you should not be updating that rapidly. > > I've covered that aspect earlier in the discussion. There is no option > to 'upgrade less rapidly', as at any single point in time, there is > *always* something that just hit the tree moments before. During a port's freeze or slush, maintainers are very careful about what's updated. If you only update during those periods there's very little risk of problems, and your packages will still be more up-to-date than in some Linux distros. > This would > require all ports users always perfectly know every single port in > their systems and have detailed knowledge about what exactly every > single dependency does, affects, and when it's safe to upgrade this > or that, and how soon to do it after a particular (and every single) > commit. You can still reduce the probability significantly. You can never reduce risk to zero. Personally, I don't recognise what you are saying. Over the last few years my desktop pc has fluctuated between 800 and 1400 installed ports, and upgrading has been very smooth.