From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 30 16:36:18 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAB31065670 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:36:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.56]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E768FC1D for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.60]) by qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id zRik1d00B1HpZEsA6UcJ19; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:36:18 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by omta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id zUcG1d00C1f6R9u8aUcGWC; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:36:18 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:36:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:36:14 -0700 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100330163614.GC47169@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20100329172753.GB39715@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <7d6fde3d1003300018gf395446g703cd287c6265a76@mail.gmail.com> <4BB1E695.2020104@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BB1E695.2020104@gmx.de> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 X-Composer: VIM 7.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: "stable" ports? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:36:18 -0000 On Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 04:55:01 PDT Matthias Andree wrote: > >I don't think this proposal is useful. Technically it would work, but socially >it wouldn't. Why? RELENG_* tagging would require that port maintainers oversee >the implications for all supported FreeBSD releases, possibly run tinderboxen to >test (and thereabouts) and would likely scare away maintainers. Not >exactly what we need. Maintainers are already effectively forced to run tinderboxen when commmitters respond to PR's with terse comments like "Build failed on FreeBSD 6.x, here's the build log, please look into it." ;) Not that I mind. I enjoy the debugging exercise. But if there's going to be increased pressure to use tinderbox, perhaps something could be done to streamline and speedup the creation of new jails? I'm not sure what I think about this proposal, however, or whether my relatively obscure ports will even be affected by it. So I'm following the discussion with interest but don't know enough to contribute anything useful. -- Charlie