Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:01:47 -0800 From: vehemens <vehemens@verizon.net> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xorg ports roadmap? Message-ID: <200911271601.47677.vehemens@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <20091127205335.GB81095@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <d873d5be0911091618s106d2a09ub4845e75cd5876a2@mail.gmail.com> <200911261455.40399.vehemens@verizon.net> <20091127205335.GB81095@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 27 November 2009 12:53:35 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Nov-26 14:55:40 -0800, vehemens <vehemens@verizon.net> wrote: > >If your having so many problems with these updates, why not just split > > ports into current and stable branches? > > This isn't as easy as it sounds because there are interactions between > so many different pieces. Back when X.org/XFree86 was a small number > of ports (basically server, libraries and base clients), it wouldn't > have been too hard. X.org now comprises something like 250 pieces > with not-very-well documented interactions. > > It might help if X.org could be cleanly split into client ports and > server ports but even that's not possible because they both depend > on a number of X-related libraries. The suggestion was to have the entire ports tree as both a current and stable branch, then using the same (similar?) rules as used for the source branches. A ports freeze would mean that changes to the stable branch would be limited, but work could still go on in the current branch. The MFC process could be semi-automated.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200911271601.47677.vehemens>