From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 23 08:47:49 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 65111D9F9C1 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:47:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from demelier.david@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wr0-x242.google.com (mail-wr0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA95E7D3BD for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:47:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from demelier.david@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wr0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 77so10819588wrb.3 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:47:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=X3Dl4oJqH9xePoh27M6/tCvdr4BfMdohCUXNGvyN318=; b=s/LB8ca7VqpZ9ipp2LNXc6vdGcvD6Qsu9xHGMizS+Hu95NC0jDy7kiwUjb2IaH0Vvs XaTnh9Lq1j0TRh1uvGyBTvAw+Vi5GRDTZneQU/u265R3TPLRBgCMfdAFWQtWSm3MKEcm GfKFF4eQEYIkAnHUZ7nNrW6RC1K/xd9QFw1pEEBueK3UFhlfJitvlV34JnTI/YFrI1Rm v9jH4hQCFVmcpKXHj6Iux69U5XtFMOzF5zj3JrrMueH3mLq4qlUyfeovQ6DC2+qWEjFz xHl4674wyHoDj/iUI6j4WQG1VP9t8qjBAWR+/2kHmVrZubDC3PGgwhtTDYqmT1cYRY58 bK7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X3Dl4oJqH9xePoh27M6/tCvdr4BfMdohCUXNGvyN318=; b=MwiLJ2AaSTRx4WXCOy5FqVrbudOgV6QX28tcn+ALSjg1VqDnOeWYTGbWGHw2YccO5y NtRyo6kdwptEixu3IPFIxp4MUQjhBNy2wlbit71RT4Wwd+C+6fleTpiocE2BGHwa2KMM V/70VhnWEvIbj7q2dKNdkneYEQBsceQMIILvpi9Kh8GOFGIeZ5++gofhn0TOMhxW/V/4 pXACszsGYgCkr7bjD3XUjJzycBu3npkwlwtghhef2le1QT66clzlJhMG5Tp9UJpgFtls w9UvV/ly4vTU6bXO4QUs72JagYHaAu2k13GWYAIvk8VNgh2+Hu4cE81UWI6t8Dsf3A7/ Flxw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzXl6WLHh0gF1M8YdcPuknkYGXdRpR2ZFth5Zs6/JgokX8EIBky yYW6RsXiMpM5lyZMSGM= X-Received: by 10.28.158.206 with SMTP id h197mr4518027wme.110.1498207667045; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 15.2.0.10.rev.sfr.net (9.128.158.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.158.128.9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l12sm5017170wrc.46.2017.06.23.01.47.46 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1498207665.2506.4.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version From: demelier.david@gmail.com To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:47:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.2 (3.24.2-1.fc26) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 08:47:49 -0000 On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535@att.net wrote: > > My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing > > the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be > > a Really Good Thing for everyone. > > I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the > mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being > available once per release, or rolling with -head. > Quarterly branches do not solve anything. A user installs a machine on March, it uses 2017Q1. Then in April an additional software must be installed, as we are in April, 2017Q2 is available so two choices: a. the user keeps 2017Q1 but won't have any security fixes as it is not maintained anymore; possibly having security flaws. b. the user switches to 2017Q2, this tree will probably have major upgrades and possibly breaking existing stuff. To me, quarterly branches are completely useless as they are not maintained enough in time. Replacing them with release branches would solve everything explained in this thread. Regards, -- David Demelier