From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 5 15:34:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211CD16A403 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:34:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jcw@highperformance.net) Received: from mx1.highperformance.net (dsl081-163-122.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.163.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B557E43D46 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:34:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jcw@highperformance.net) Received: from [192.168.1.16] (w16.stradamotorsports.com [192.168.1.16]) by mx1.highperformance.net (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k95FYVgu095309; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:34:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcw@highperformance.net) Message-ID: <4525260C.6080100@highperformance.net> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:34:36 -0700 From: "Jason C. Wells" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Norgaard References: <45249716.2050401@highperformance.net> <4524B1DF.20206@locolomo.org> In-Reply-To: <4524B1DF.20206@locolomo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=2.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on s4.stradamotorsports.com Cc: freebsd general questions Subject: Re: Compatibility Between Releases Policy X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:34:37 -0000 Erik Norgaard wrote: > Jason C. Wells wrote: >> Where is the policy regarding compatibility between releases documented? >> >> I recall reading once upon a time that FreeBSD won't break >> compatibility for the duration of a major point release. If a third >> party wrote software for 6.0 it would be perfectly compatible with >> 6.1, 6.2 and on. >> >> The reason I ask is that I am considering the wisdom of running >> portupgraed with each minor point release. > > I don't think you can rely on POLA for ports. But for the base system, > the developers try to stick to the Principle Of Least Astonishment, in > particular across minor version numbers. > > Chears, Erik Ports astonish me more often than FreeBSD to be sure. If one uses a port that was built on a 6.0 system, can one trust that no bit rot will occur by the time 6.9 rolls around. Will all of FreeBSDs interfaces and features remain backward compatible? While the developer community might employee POLA in this regard, this sure seems like the kind of policy issue that would be written into our release engineering documents. (I couldn't find it.) Thanks, Jason