From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 10 23:47:01 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0783B106566C; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:47:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04B58FC08; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:47:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 744558C07D; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:47:00 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:47:00 -0500 From: Mark Linimon To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20100410234700.GG6166@lonesome.com> References: <4BBFD502.1010507@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BBFD502.1010507@elischer.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: ports@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: ports and PBIs 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: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:47:01 -0000 not to be a troll but ... ... for those that want the ease-of-use of PBIs, why not just use PC-BSD in the first place? They seem to have their own QA process in place in terms of keeping the various large applications at a sane level. Kernel development could (just like it is on the Macs) be done in some kind of virtualization context. My own experience with helping people who try to run FreeBSD-CURRENT with an up-to-date ports tree is that there are far too many moving parts for it to be dependable. (For more on how often ports get broken by changes in -CURRENT, see http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsBrokenOnCurrent. Note that that list is not complete.) mcl