Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:45:17 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Igor Mozolevsky <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1201171824170.1855@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <CADWvR2jYUMv1ZXxAdmOu=NHoK5XfdEC0mum7NMkfQFeGX6k5Yw@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <CAJ-VmomM46xGk3R6a9G_KDxMvF5ETiSQPwv5ARxwBo90t4=x=g@mail.gmail.com> <CADWvR2jYUMv1ZXxAdmOu=NHoK5XfdEC0mum7NMkfQFeGX6k5Yw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: > On 17 January 2012 23:01, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> If you'd like to see: >> >> ... more frequent releases? then please step up and help with all the >> infrastructure needed to roll out test releases, including building >> _all_ the ports. A lot of people keep forgetting that a "release" is >> "build all the ports for all the supported platforms". > > I don't know this so I'm asking: does fixing a port to work on a > pending release involve substantial changes (as in functionality cf. > cosmetic) to the "core" or just patching the port to work with the > core? If latter, maybe it's worthwhile uncoupling the two (core OS and > ports)? IMHO, the two are already uncoupled too much. The problem I have with ports is that there is not a -stable branch that tracks with -stable core. I don't need the latest and greatest ports, just security and bug fixes. It doesn't even have to be every port, just the commonly used ports. There's not enough man power for this, unfortunately, but I'm still happy that at least we _do_ have _a_ ports system :-) -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1201171824170.1855>