From owner-freebsd-ports  Sun Aug  3 11:40:54 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA07486
          for ports-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.uniserve.com (tom@shell.uniserve.com [204.244.210.252])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA07466;
          Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (tom@localhost)
	by shell.uniserve.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA04059;
	Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: shell.uniserve.com: tom owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>
cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued)
In-Reply-To: <19970803122321.15396@klemm.gtn.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970803113010.3843B-100000@shell.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Andreas Klemm wrote:

...
> So he wanted only to support -stable in the future. But I think
> this is a step behind.
> Ports have to be buildable on -current and -stable, because :
> 	a) -current is the next upcoming -stable release

  Really?  Probably not.  I expect that there will be a 2.2.5 or something
out soon.

> 	b) people like me, who have only one machine, usually 
> 	   run the bleeding edge, 

  I don't believe this is true.  I believe true number of bleeding edge
users is small.  Unless your are a developer, there is little benefit.
Other than SMP, what is in current that would tempt people to use it?

  People with only one machine are not normally technically advanced to
run current, because they don't have the resources to develop that
experience.

...
> Figure out, if ports are only made for stable ... If -current
> does more and more incompatible changes to -stable ... Who

  Key point here.  Basically no one can stop developers from making
current incompatible with stable.  Basically, if current developers agree
not to break compatibility, the problem goes away.


Tom