Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:47:01 +0900 From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@iDaemons.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: portmgr@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thoughts about ports freeze Message-ID: <86lm2ls3ei.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: <20021220001529.GC9963@vega.vega.com> References: <20021220001529.GC9963@vega.vega.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:15:29 +0200,
sobomax wrote:
> Personally I think, that while pushing 5.0 out of the door is very
> important thing to do, but having it stumbled on the way of STABLE/RELEASE
> users is not good at all. Personally I've heard many complains from the
I thought about that some time ago, but I came to think that taking
the time to fix ports for 5.x now is a good thing.
See the list of those broken ports. Ports committers haven't payed
much attention to ports that are broken on CURRENT. They (including
me) keep saying "My port builds just fine on STABLE. It's CURRENT
that's broken." However, the 4.x -> 5.x update introduces a lot of
incompatibility and we must get developer communities out there to fix
their software to support FreeBSD 5.x before 5.x becomes the main
stream. Or we'll just lose developers' attention.
> local community about popular ports not being updated in time, as
> they used to. And I don't have a single good argument to reply to those
> complains with - users usually don't care about 5.0, but they do care
> about their 4.x production machines receiving latest updates and fixes,
> and the current situation pisses them off.
Complaints are hard to deal with. We deal with them based on requests
and patches for approval. We didn't say we are not upgrading ports at
all, but we can update ports with mandatory review so we don't
introduce any more breakage. Their, and our frustration could be
resolved if we portmgr work harder to review their patches.
Well, I don't think we are going to take this long freze period in the
4.8 release cycle nor in the 5.1 release cycle, but only this time.
The C/C++ compiler is major upgraded and many source files need
changes, we now comply much more with the standards and many configure
scripts and headers need changes.
> Perhaps we could just branch out current state of the tree and unlock
> it for normal use, while allow to commit onto the RE branch only after
> getting portmgr's approval. What we are currently trying to do is
> to mimic techiques used for src tree (long freeze), but IMO this
> approach is inappropriate for ports, because they are fundamentally
> different - the former is slow moving-target, while the latter is
> fast-moving one.
When we have much less broken ports, we can consider tagging and
unfreezing the ports tree for 5.0-RELEASE earlier than the actual
release, leaving the chance to slide tags for some ports that are
found to have security vulnerabilities or be seriously broken after
the unfreeze.
--
/
/__ __ Akinori.org / MUSHA.org
/ ) ) ) ) / FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp
"I believe in what I see, I believe in what I hear,
I believe that what I'm feeling changes how the world appears."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86lm2ls3ei.wl>