Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:46:48 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Packages available for different FreeBSD versions Message-ID: <4678C560-A518-4A9D-98C4-8864E1AEA2FF@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20090818032736.4702f243@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <4A89BD3E.8020804@toyon.com> <d356c5630908171342m4c8469dcw6a64c5d2a5990457@mail.gmail.com> <4A89CA18.7000506@toyon.com> <A1943023-5226-47E0-AB2F-B72814260687@mac.com> <4A89D4F9.9020508@toyon.com> <d356c5630908171541k3c116224g30ee6631278c7748@mail.gmail.com> <20090818032736.4702f243@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:27 PM, RW wrote: > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:41:12 -0500 > Andrew Gould <andrewlylegould@gmail.com> wrote: > STABLE is what it sounds like. > > I don't think it is what it sounds like - STABLE branches are > development branches with stable binary interfaces. It's the security > branches that are intended for production use. It's reasonable for people who update and build their own software image to do some level of qualification of the result, before deploying this to production systems. Whether you track -STABLE or the security branch for your initial release ought to be determined more by your preferences to minimize the scope of OS updates versus your desire for relevant new functionality. Regards, -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4678C560-A518-4A9D-98C4-8864E1AEA2FF>