From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 10 21:04:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A085B16A4CF for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:04:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC6043D41 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:04:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-160-246-51.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.246.51]) by pi.codefab.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9AL3kPg057331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4169A3A3.9070308@mac.com> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:31 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dick Davies References: <20041010204308.GA29900@lb.tenfour> In-Reply-To: <20041010204308.GA29900@lb.tenfour> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.5 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pi.codefab.com cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: ports freeze and portaudit alerts X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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, 10 Oct 2004 21:04:00 -0000 Dick Davies wrote: > But I'm a little alarmed by the pre 5.3 release ports freeze - portaudit has > flagged an awful lot of packages as having holes and refused to install them. [ ... ] > I just wondered if there is a policy to not upgrade ports under any > circumstances, or if this is just an oversight? I can imagine this would make > me very twitchy if I was running production boxes during a freeze.... > or have I missed something, and this doesn't affect 4.* users? The ports freeze slows down the rate at which changes are made to ports, but important changes like security fixes will still happen, and permitted after approval from . Your question prompts another, however, which is: "How long is too long to keep the ports tree frozen?" I suspect that there would exist less busywork between portmgr@ and maybe re@ if the ports tree was frozen not during the entire beta cycle, but starting a week or so before the RC versions come out. -- -Chuck