From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 23 09:35:06 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 AB5CBDA0923 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:35:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from demelier.david@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wr0-x22f.google.com (mail-wr0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22f]) (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 27E957EE24 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:35:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from demelier.david@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wr0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k67so57360637wrc.2 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:35:06 -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=JxZC4FCOnlbUMJZmWSWA5e/yExJ5z8CFWYzSRmJrY1Y=; b=dsuNlmQxfHfg/Zfr/l3aHf17AtwwT4gVm8sBb+9cWHH8mUqlOS07HFIHyPNzmtTfLH vJtOfL8mHo9m8YUSukfVSRy0VEOgzpOp+C02j7BDFMohduboE25LK8EPtONFsR5htSj/ mey6OzQDbI2xSDORjCd0aWptm/fCTraWOPwvaKK6w3uU5X+BbFdHR/yoVNWQroaGfTTe YJTXmyoC6JQtWbrXeupDpk1BRLFCztqcpCo4ughGsrF4JkGzXX00pEE6Jqre1Pi4QzTr N+PCes9TiHjZhDkhMiZhHuHZ/9HkWH3ACS9Fd7YQnTV2IpVPcSULr8D7VPOxjjJvLWNM n81A== 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=JxZC4FCOnlbUMJZmWSWA5e/yExJ5z8CFWYzSRmJrY1Y=; b=svCmpHHWKkaev80FZZmG5rE8EKvWiJwa0HgD6UOWUnD+4svB4T6B65AMKf8cWuwcJe ymzc7I/cSTnw5gQYmBW1S+5eMYJpZHitX7Mbg+kx9UcVsBHycGfg4ZpgqHdQEgaZi9Tw lOyNmbvMycRc27dZUCLwwas86NbDFV1mGb1KhKZk+Ld77IDUwMJCtqPyhpwVlaFvyR6R 9V0tQqrHkiAWXaO2wF9DQYG9r2labLiBjOWh58xTHAKJr8MSG/P3sL4WbMLXxUROYLES UQfdIWq2voCQ6pfmG/KfWv4M5ndUC05ADhFQlUiCK6HDbBBRqh9xm+Y8eWugbC83WWcH tQuA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyk/MSmw57lh6Iv+qE3yUtUAEf5JCC4IXUdig+HbZV2F4KWjZHO 6qA3248KW+DPvVI4oFE= X-Received: by 10.223.155.150 with SMTP id d22mr4749093wrc.193.1498210503258; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:35:03 -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 c71sm3441736wmh.21.2017.06.23.02.35.02 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1498210501.2506.6.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 11:35:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <00d078be50a83b6e18ef20bfe76e30ca@acheronmedia.hr> References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <1498157001.2235.1.camel@gmail.com> <1498206372.2506.1.camel@gmail.com> <00d078be50a83b6e18ef20bfe76e30ca@acheronmedia.hr> 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 09:35:06 -0000 On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 10:38 +0200, Vlad K. wrote: > But again, that's all doable without having to introduce new > infrastructure. The ports tree as is can be maintained like this and > quarterly repos would NOT be required. All it's needed is for > maintainers to keep a stable version and a latest version. There's > already plenty of ports done like that, otoh postfix and > postfix-current, nginx and nginx-devel, etc... Yes but again if not all ports follow this system, we still have the problem of having potential major upgrades. > Because the BIGGEST problem in maintaining separate "stable" or LTS > branches is BACKPORTING fixes for ports in the #2 category, ie. > those > that mix new features with fixes, so you have to CHERRY PICK only > the > fix and BACKPORT it to your "stable" branch. And that's even more > work > often introducing NEW bugs. Release branches do not need backports. > BTW, the problem of the original post could've been avoided if the > user > only read UPDATING which clearly stated that www/node becomes 7 and > previous node (6) becomes www/node6. (20161207) entry. Completely off topic, if you upgrade the ports tree, you should update all your packages as doing partial upgrades is even worse (shared library rebuilds for instance).