Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:14:22 +0000 From: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what is the purpose of the quarterly ports branches? Message-ID: <0b018f88-4b64-67c8-a938-ae45fc19d08f@gjunka.com> In-Reply-To: <db995492-2e93-1979-ecf3-d978f78d0f74@freebsd.org> References: <7c73fc75-b4d9-063d-02f9-628e06f8d4bd@freebsd.org> <CAOc73CDiZM9N9o6cQb6kU7x8bCvgsA_cL2Q28QjJpSdBzCBD_A@mail.gmail.com> <20161207025955.GA21488@Silverstone> <3a97d014-1b8b-7e34-6704-1ee5fd8b97ca@m5p.com> <db995492-2e93-1979-ecf3-d978f78d0f74@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13/12/2016 18:05, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 7/12/2016 10:12 PM, George Mitchell wrote: >> On 12/06/16 21:59, Jason Unovitch wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:48:20PM +0000, Ben Woods wrote: >>>> On Tue., 6 Dec. 2016 at 4:44 am, Julian Elischer >>>> <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> they are effectively useless because the results are not archived, >>>>> and >>>>> the quarterly pkg branch actually changes day by day, so making two >>>>> machines from the same quarterly branch can give you different >>>>> machines (making it useless for paying work) >>>>> >>>>> not to mention that if you use the quarterly pkg branch you run he >>>>> risk of it completely changing if you happen to be unlucky enough to >>>>> be doing it across a quarterly boundary. then you end up with a >>>>> completely messed up system. (from experience). >>>>> >>> If you are handling the burden of support for a customer then perhaps >>> Poudriere and building internally is the best option. Then if you want >>> to stay on an older quarterly because none of what you deploy to >>> customers is impacted by security issues you can roll them at your own >>> pace. >>> >>>>> But the big question still remains.. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think you are solving and why are they changing? >>>>> shouldn't >>>>> a snapshot be stable? >>> >>> Think releng compared to stable in the src repo rather than >>> release/stable. They change in the same fashion to get SA (in the form >>> of VuXML) and errata worthy fixes. >>> [...] >> If only! At least the current base releng does not arbitrarily >> disappear every three months. -- George > > so I think there is a simple partial fix to stop SOME of the worst > problems. > Name the package quarterly sets the same as the ports branches, Use a > symlink to point to them. > and keep them around for 6 months, so there are always 2, one of which > has pretty much stopped changing. > (and provide an EASY way to snarf the lot. currently it's done via an > index.html or something that screws it up. I heard that ports' SVN is mirrored to Github. Isn't it enough to just create a branch or tag for each quarterly release? Even if quarterly packages are deleted, re-building packages from such branch/tag should allow to recreate those packages as required since the same code would give the same packages? Grzegorz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0b018f88-4b64-67c8-a938-ae45fc19d08f>