Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:24:31 -0400 From: <scratch65535@att.net> To: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <lsl4lctd0452v2r9442vpg68f88c1igdhi@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <77c15a0a-fde0-b240-803e-b369ebf0b897@gjunka.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <2f23f3d0-dcb1-dc12-eb9f-c8966a10f5f7@toco-domains.de> <77c15a0a-fde0-b240-803e-b369ebf0b897@gjunka.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Default] On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:33:50 +0000, Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> wrote: >we could >start small with a just a handful of ports in a stable LTS (Long Term >Support) branch. Develop processes around maintaining them, get some >feedback about the effort of applying only security fixes, then add more >ports as required or as viable from the resources point of view. How >does that sound? It sounds excellent, at least to me. How many platform roles are seen as fbsd's metier? Firewall? Already handled. Specialist workstations such as sound/video editing? Maybe. I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. Servers. No question. That's always been freebsd's best thing. The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large. Unnecessarily complex and a source of uncontrolled errors, yes, but not really *large* qua large.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?lsl4lctd0452v2r9442vpg68f88c1igdhi>