From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Tue Aug 7 06:26:57 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6206F10758C3 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7D527F744; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:26:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (124-169-199-167.dyn.iinet.net.au [124.169.199.167]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w776Qf4U069254 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2018 23:26:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: Archives of last quarterly package builds? To: Rainer Duffner , Kurt Jaeger Cc: Jules Gilbert via freebsd-pkg References: <34cb48da-1f15-1610-966d-1e30314f7665@freebsd.org> <20180803031744.GH2118@home.opsec.eu> <20180804063919.GI2118@home.opsec.eu> <201539A4-078E-4884-8FEB-CB512F9E4DBD@ultra-secure.de> From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <4d810e3d-955c-5ee7-09da-46b6bc1b6ae2@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:26:35 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201539A4-078E-4884-8FEB-CB512F9E4DBD@ultra-secure.de> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.27 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 06:26:57 -0000 On 4/8/18 9:09 pm, Rainer Duffner wrote: > > >> Am 04.08.2018 um 08:39 schrieb Kurt Jaeger > >: >> >> The idea is: use the quarterlies, and if the next quarter comes, >> upgrade to that quarterly. The quarterlies are a way to test >> if we can provide some 'more stable tree' than HEAD for the ports. >> >> It's not perfect, and we all learn the use cases and the issues etc. >> >> I don't have the overview over all the posts on that issues, so: >> is there a text that describes alternative approaches ? Something >> where implementation can be discussed ? > My issue is that just as it starts to get the bugs wrinkled out of it, it's deleted. I gave up.  and now we mirror the ports tree in house and do a build of all the packages at a given revision on the head branch, and then OCCASIONALLY we slide a single package forward (or back) if we were unfortunate in our snapshot and caught it with a bug/problem. > > > The problem is that different people have different foci. > > I think it’s assumed that one hosts and maintains his (or her) own > copy of the ports-tree and maintains it according to one’s own > focus-points. > > E.g.: if I was to maintain my own fork of the ports-tree, I’d lay > the emphasis on a number of ports that greatly concern me (apache, > php, nginx, varnish, python and some of its base-ports, plugins for > nagios and some other stuff I’ve forgotten). I’d basically follow > upstream with those very closely. > The rest, I’d let dormant most of the time, unless a > security-vulnerability made an update inevitable. > > But I’m really not in a position to do that, so I use the quarterly > cuts. They are a good compromise. > > Sometimes, I copy over a port from HEAD to my quarterly checkout > because I really want to have the update in. But that has become > rare, actually. > > > Different people have different requirements. > I think if you need very high stability, you’ll likely end up using > something else (CentOS+ Software Collections - or Ubuntu, if you’re > really desperate...) > > Certainly, someone from the foundation or some other company has > done the math on what it would take (man-power and financials) to > maintain certain subsets of the ports for longer than three months. > Or everything. > > It will, however, be almost impossible to get it right for everybody. > > > > >