From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 17:30:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from meow.osd.bsdi.com (meow.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EC737B718; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:30:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@jhb-laptop.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.241]) by meow.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2H1TfG72201; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:29:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3AB2BC97.6CCF6F6B@freebsd-services.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:29:55 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: "Paul "@FreeBSD.ORG, "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Richards=FC?="@FreeBSD.ORG, " "@meow.osd.bsdi.com Subject: Re: More BETA evilness Re: BETA induced nervousness Cc: jkh@FreeBSD.org, j mckitrick , arch@FreeBSD.org, "Steve O'Hara-Smith" , Jim Mock , Alfred Perlstein , Kris Kennaway , Chris Dillon , Will Andrews Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 17-Mar-01 Paul "Richardsü wrote: > Will Andrews wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:12:20AM +0000, Paul Richardsü wrote: >> > It doesn't seem like setting the OS version to beta gains us anything, >> > we might as well do >> >> Wrong. You obviously never tried building ports before only to discover >> that they break in strange ways because of stupid version checking configure >> scripts or otherwise. This was a real problem in the olden days. We >> still need to do this to catch other mistakes. >> >> IMO we still need something, but it need not be called BETA, it can be >> called PRERELEASE (which is what Kris suggested). > > Or ports fixing happens after the -release tag is laid. Umm, Paul, we usually release ports with the release you know. Like, at the same time. > That seems more logical to me, finalise the OS then check all the ports > work. This is called a release candidate and a release cycle. We do this work _before_ the release goes out, not after. > It would also be the case that if ports were more portable across > FreeBSD versions this would be less of any issue. No silly. This isn't bsd.port.mk junk this is stupid configure scripts that have hard-coded checks on the output of uname. > Paul. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message