From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 4 02:40:25 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B6B106566B; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 02:40:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E10C8FC0C; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 02:40:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so5099184vbb.13 for ; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:40:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+QSMFw8uh5vX5GrOZa+8WVcjAfMp9Cy1wl4dSNAVPvw=; b=jaki1EL2mO0f0h2PU94KrchHeX5QEH6CYowKfgu08stKKbtrAls01zJZMn6SOKiUK5 aKX9yjAiUJxBHUUW2WqyVS1AJoMMfG2EmpplL1243wsakWdPe0+H1m66l5cSSEHXX1m1 yVZUNhFkyC+Aq8kDikO+8lJOQETP1Bx1YwF7g= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.66.35 with SMTP id c3mr2404426vdt.17.1322966424632; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:40:24 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.109.10 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:40:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EDABDE8.9060406@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111202115446.GB25963@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4ED974A2.7080606@FreeBSD.org> <4ED9EA27.8090206@inse.ru> <4EDABDE8.9060406@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 10:40:24 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XaLENdAKVNUQ27iOn89sQRaEa58 Message-ID: From: Adrian Chadd To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Roman Kurakin , freebsd-current Subject: Re: CVS removal from the base X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 02:40:25 -0000 The problem I have with all of this is pretty simple. With the CVS in base, it's treated like the (mostly) rest of the system in a stable release - ie, people don't simply keep updating it to the latest and greatest without some testing. If there are any critical bugs or security flaws, they're backported. The port isn't upgraded unless it has to be, and then if it's a major update, there are plenty of eyeballs to review it. It's in /src, after all. But with ports, the ports tree only has the "latest" version or two; sometimes a few major versions to choose from (eg apache), but we don't maintain the same kind of package versions that Linux operating system packages do. So it's entirely possible the "CVS" port maintainer updates the port to the latest and greatest, which works for him - and it breaks someone's older CVS repository somehow. I'd be happier with the idea of things moving into ports if the ports tree did have stable snapshots which had incremental patches for bug/security fixes, rather than "upgrade to whatever the port maintainer chooses." I'm all for change, but it seems those pushing forward change seem to be far exceeding the comfortable level of more conservative people; or those with real needs. Those who have relied on FreeBSD's stable release source tree being that - stable - whilst ports moves along with the latest and greatest as needed. It doesn't matter that you may do a fantastic job with a stable CVS port - what matters is how people perceive what you're doing. It just takes one perceived screwup here for the view to shift that "freebsd is going the way of linux". And then we lose a whole lot of what public "good" opinion FreeBSD has. ;-) 2c, Adrian