From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Jun 25 06:23:33 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1A8D8A8E1 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:23:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mueller6722@twc.com) Received: from dnvrco-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (dnvrco-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.73.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "dnvrco-oedge-vip.email.rr.com", Issuer "dnvrco-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97510C38 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:23:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mueller6722@twc.com) Received: from [74.134.208.22] ([74.134.208.22:42459] helo=localhost) by dnvrco-omsmta03 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.6.9.48312 r(Core:3.6.9.0)) with ESMTP id B7/46-01815-DD65F495; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:23:26 +0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:23:24 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Thomas Mueller" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> <594C4663.5080209@quip.cz> <09384577-ed7e-d142-43f3-0a08f5d21056@freebsd.org> <5eabe1d2-85a3-f7eb-a1ab-dc5552eb70fe@gjunka.com> <6d35f70b-17f2-d864-68ed-a3637cdc9fbf@gjunka.com> <63e5c4e30a60d51c5a068177b9483206@acheronmedia.hr> <8948545b-5269-8a0e-3f92-9dfd02f227c1@gjunka.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.64.88:25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:23:33 -0000 > > I personally can't see the rationale of many OS version branches of ports: far too much work. > > I had the thought of something like that for (NetBSD) pkgsrc: a very tall order, considering that pkgsrc has been ported to many OSes besides NetBSD. > > Imagine a separate branch of pkgsrc for every version and branch of NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. > > I only follow the current branch of FreeBSD ports and pkgsrc, though now I have also become interested in pkgsrc-synth. > Tom > Are there any advantages of using pkg instead of pkgsrc on FreeBSD? > Instead of having branches by OS version, would having ports LTS branches > independent of the base system be a better solution? > Grzegorz It looks like you might have misunderstood something I said about pkgsrc. I use pkg with FreeBSD ports on FreeBSD, but my interest in pkgsrc and pkgsrc-synth is for NetBSD. Working with pkgsrc on NetBSD convinces me that they need to import portupgrade and/or portmaster from FreeBSD, maybe synth will be better? Pkgsrc is awkward dealing with packages whose names have changes or branched. Ports LTS branches, is that Long Term Service? I don't really understand that question. Tom