From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 23 04:23:51 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 99235D9BFE6 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 04:23:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58AB2770C9 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 04:23:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (124-148-108-84.dyn.iinet.net.au [124.148.108.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v5N4Ninp062126 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:23:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version To: Dave Hayes , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <1498157001.2235.1.camel@gmail.com> From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:23:39 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US 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: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 04:23:51 -0000 On 23/6/17 2:57 am, Dave Hayes wrote: > 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. then at install they should set their packages to follow head, and ignore the branches. > > 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?