From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 25 07:21:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB25216A4CE for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:21:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from box7954.elkhouse.de (box7954.elkhouse.de [213.9.79.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4BC43D55 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:21:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from roman@ontographics.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (1Cust156.vr1.dtm1.alter.net [149.229.96.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by box7954.elkhouse.de (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9P7Na0q014873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:23:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from roman@ontographics.com) From: Roman Kennke To: Mark Linimon In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098688877.666.14.camel@moonlight> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:21:18 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: RELEASE_X_Y_Z branches/tags maintained?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:21:22 -0000 Am Mo, den 25.10.2004 schrieb Mark Linimon um 8:52: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Roman Kennke wrote: > > > Am Mo, den 25.10.2004 schrieb Kris Kennaway um 0:30: > > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 08:19:36PM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote: > > > > Hello list, > > > > > > > > I have a question regarding the branches/tags of the ports tree for > > > > stable releases. Are they in any way maintained. > > > > > > No. > > > > Hmm, wouldn't this be a good thing to do, especially on production > > machines? > > This question comes up once or twice a year. It is _possible_ that > it would be a good thing to do ... given infinite manpower, which we > don't have. What we do have is almost 12k ports * 12 build environments > (cross product of major release * chip architecture). > > Even with just maintaining one single line of development for ports, > we aren't managing all that coverage, and we aren't making headway > on getting the number of PRs down (we were making slow progress until > the freeze, but we gained 200 during that time.) We're only getting > somewhere around 95% of the i386 ports, 90% of the amd64 and sparc64 > ports, and we are having trouble with the alpha build machines. > > Oh yeah, and 3153 ports with no maintainer, which is another problem > altogether :-) So it is the old problem of quantity vs. quality :-/ I would help out if I had time and knowledge. Are these problems documented somewhere (e.g. a list of unmaintained ports, ...) ? Is there someone screaming: "hey, we have problems, please help out!" or "please fix known problems before adding new ones (== new ports)" /Roman