From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 29 15:57:29 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0427D106567C for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:57:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769308FC17 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwHL4-0005n2-VC for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:57:18 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:57:18 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:57:18 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:57:04 +0200 Lines: 59 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20100118 Thunderbird/3.0 X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Subject: "stable" ports? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:57:29 -0000 Hi, First of all, I'd like to have this particular discussion in the open with ports developers and maintainers. So please - if you are a "simple" user, without a port to maintain, you will be given another thread if anything comes out as a result from this discussion. There is a discussion[*] currently in The Forbidden Palace about the possibility (it's just that - a discussion of viability) of having a "stable" ports branch which would in the future as a consequence enable building binary packages and deploying them in the way of Linux's "apt" and "yum" tools. One way to do it, my proposal, would be to maintain a stable "overlay" of the ports, one for each major supported branch (i.e. 6.x, 7.x, 8.x), containing ports deemed "important" for some reason. Some more potential properties: * Ports in the stable branch/overlay would be maintained with more rigorous checking. * Updates which break shared libraries would not be allowed within such a branch/overlay (i.e. no updating gnome 2.xx to 2.x(x+1), libpng, libjpeg, xorg). * Binary packages for a whole X.Y branch would be built on X.0 (e.g. on 7.0 for all 7.x branches). This is obviously pretty fuzzy - rules would need to be specifically made later. The biggest problem would seem to be the burden this would have on ports developers vs the gains that could be gotten from this system. In some cases the burdens are obvious - the maintainer(s) would need to e.g. maintain three versions of the ports - a random example would be e.g. X.Org 7.0 for 6.x, 7.2 for 7.x and 7.4 for 8.x. Another would be keeping PHP 5.2 for 7.x and 8.x and having 5.3 in the future (CURRENT/9.x) branch. Some of the benefits are also obvious. The scheme would allow faster and more convenient updating of the system, without breakage of shlibs within a branch. Within all this, I think one point is important: there should be no inventing of wheels or pioneering work on this. Much the same concepts are already proven to work with Linux systems (stable package branches, apt and yum), so this is not very much unknown territory. Here not be dragons :) I consider this just an opinion-collecting thread: Would you, as a maintainer / developer, be interested in something like this, and why? [*] the discussion was started unexpectedly following my post bringing http://blog.hagander.net/archives/167-PostgreSQL-infrastructure-updates.html to attention.