From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Jun 22 18:57:52 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 8BF26D9294B for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:57:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from fedex2.jetcafe.org (fedex2.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "fedex2.jetcafe.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45DA91A9C for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:57:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) X-Envelope-To: Received: from [205.147.26.4] (hokkshideh.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.4]) by fedex2.jetcafe.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id v5MIvpd2085775 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:57:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <1498157001.2235.1.camel@gmail.com> From: Dave Hayes Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:57:51 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1498157001.2235.1.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1 ( out of 5) ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin version 3.4.1 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 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: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:57:52 -0000 On 06/22/2017 11:43, demelier.david@gmail.com wrote: > Let me use my example of www/node back. I have built the port www/node > in poudriere using this origin (so no version). At the time I've built > it it was a 6.x version. When I upgraded my machine, www/node has > switched to 7.x version and since this software follows semantic > versioning, every application using the 6.x branch may or may not work > anymore. I completely agree that an annoying consequence of what the volunteers are doing with the ports tree. These unwelcome surprises are the bulk of my non-automated work in creating package repositories. Frankly, I also wish this kind of thing would stop. Ultimately my wishes are irrelevant for reasons far far beyond the scope of this thread. > Now, I'm in a state where if I pull the ports tree, I must check if > www/node6 still exists or I must not upgrade. > > With releases branches I will be sure that: > > 1. www/node will *always* be at a 6.x version; > 2. www/node will still be supported for the version of the FreeBSD > system. That sounds reasonable...yet others will likely expect www/node to always be the latest version. Perhaps these others might complain that it is not the latest version and it would be reasonable to have node always be at the latest version. Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if somehow you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via some (as yet unspecified) mechanism? -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>>> *The opinions expressed above are entirely my own* <<<< If you want to get rid of somebody, just tell them something for their own good.