Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:45:37 +0400
From:      Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org>
To:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ports tree tagging again
Message-ID:  <20060818064537.GA78016@underworld.novel.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20060817124739.GA3643@xor.obsecurity.org>
References:  <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> <20060816172835.GA29719@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060817053955.GD62148@underworld.novel.ru> <20060817124739.GA3643@xor.obsecurity.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  Kris Kennaway wrote:

> > If this comes up every few months, then it's really needed, isn't it?
>=20
> No, it means that a handful of people think that it would be great if
> the rest of the people all started doing more work to support their
> idea.

I'm not the only person who wants to have stable ports tree and binary
packages. Actually, about 90% people whom I asked about that said it
would be nice.

> kuriyama's proof of concept shows that the infrastructure for
> supporting such a third party ports project (i.e. importing the
> freebsd ports tree into another repository, and then merging from
> there to your other branches) is not difficult to set up; so if you
> and others think that a stable ports branch is a worthwhile project,
> then take the lead, go and set it up, and if there's truly a demand
> for it then you'll see the evidence of that.  You're not going to get
> anywhere if you expect someone else to do the hard work for you.

kuriyama's proof of concept shows as well that the project will die
very fast without the support from freebsd.

> > And I personally have no enough resources to provide binary packages
> > for all supported arches (and I'm not sure about i386 even).
>=20
> Neither do we, so packages for a stable branch are infeasible anyway.

I don't believe we cannot do _anything_ about it.

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iQCVAwUBROViEIB0WzgdqspGAQJwiwP/QrHgg867Lbq/A6TAq2lgUTDpfGQki4Gu
3flHAYDuy6BwqWIvldBthcdp44T7m/R8Auvrsz6t0XsxC+MFmxNjD5xNo+M1zAHn
NLm3llcfzZYbVpfTvUktZdpvP/HlUzK8OicO2lgofyunfpDH98GAOCVS/WnE8Qag
xtDVLh1Fe0I=
=9IQo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060818064537.GA78016>