From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Jun 22 22:36:30 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 C3BDBD95BCA for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:36:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB286801D for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:36:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id AA00BD95BC7; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: 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 A9A79D95BC6 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:36:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C8726801B for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:36:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152A92847D; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 474C62847B; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version To: scratch65535@att.net, freebsd-ports References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: <594C4663.5080209@quip.cz> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 22:36:30 -0000 scratch65535@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: > [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535@att.net wrote: >>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing >>> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be >>> a Really Good Thing for everyone. >> >> I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the >> mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being >> available once per release, or rolling with -head. > > Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes > of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits > is a social-status enhancer. **Nobody** with real work to do > ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken. And this is where you are so wrong. Ports tree is never in the state where everything works and has no bugs. (and cannot be, because upstreams have bugs) Even if it compiles and installs it does not mean that it is not broken and nobody needs newer version. Just because your needs are different than others doesn't mean others are dilettantes. Miroslav Lachman