From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 4 06:26:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA00786 for current-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 06:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA00776; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 06:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (user4.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA20946; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:26:20 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <2847.870634281@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Aug 3, 97 11:51:21 am" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:26:36 -0500 To: torstenb@onizuka.tb.9715.org (Torsten Blum) From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Cc: asami@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 6:59 AM -0500 8/4/97, Torsten Blum wrote: >Well, most of us who run -current are capable of building their own >ports and packages. >Well, as I said before, you can not change all ports to the "changes >between -current and the upcoming release". That is what I call insane. >I know this is likely to cause a "flame war", but ignoring the problem >does not solve it... I've kept quiet on this until now. However, I think the change IS the correct decision. (1) The Post-Release systems are the ones used by a majority of the users. (2) The -current system is too unstable. The porters are having to make changes because they are tracking a changing source AND because they have a moving target. By making their designated target the "-stable" branch, they have removed one of the sources of incompatability that they need to work around. (3) There is nothing to say that they won't incorporate changes to make something work with "-current". Who knows, by freeing the porters from the RESPONSIBILITY of tracking "-current", they are likely to actually (a) get additional help from those who "have to" run a developmental grade system and (b) waste less time changing the changes. Under those circumstances, I think that you might be surprised how many ports will actually be available to the "-current" community. Further, I think that this change shows a maturing of the FreeBSD system. It is slowly transforming from a toy for OS hackers into a truly usable OS for a wider audience. I think the pressures to ship a new version every few months have limited the opportunity to have well though out, implemented, and tested major features added. "Evolution, not revolution" only goes so far. Eventually you need to take the shackles off and allow significant leaps rather than just shuffling along. Once they freeze the kernel features, we should take the time to make the ports will work before we release it. If that delays the release cycle (it will), then the extra time should be added to the schedule now.