Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 19:38:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, sbz@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org, cross+freebsd@distal.com Subject: Re: Quarterly 13.3 amd64 package inconsistency? Message-ID: <1583439132.2388.1726076301178@localhost> In-Reply-To: <dd25d942-29d5-499c-8e43-01276daeff9c@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
------=_Part_2387_1003036883.1726076301169 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Has this py-OpenSSL issue been resolved already? If not, I can take a look in the near future.=20 Regards, Ronald. Van: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Datum: 24 augustus 2024 23:45 Aan: ports@freebsd.org CC: cross+freebsd@distal.com Onderwerp: Re: Quarterly 13.3 amd64 package inconsistency? >=20 >=20 > On 24/08/2024 19:48, Chris Ross wrote: >=20 > [..] >=20 > >>> I haven't tested that software nor confirmed version dependencies. Th= e ports tree shows the versions in the trees as mentioned but does not have= a version requirement checked for dependencies. > >> > >> Dependency info referenced above. Is there perhaps an issue with the > >> py-openssl port then? > >=20 > > Coming back to this. I temporarily switched my pkg config to use lates= t > > instead of quarterly, which allowed me to pull in pyopenssl 24.1.0.1 > > and I am now running. However, I think the problem still exists in > > quarterly, and should be corrected. > >=20 > > I=E2=80=99ll drop it if no-one else cares, but it seems a "broken windo= w=E2=80=9D that > > should be fixed. >=20 > We use quarterly packages on all our machines and more and more often I s= ee that something is broken in quarterly and the fix never makes it from HE= AD to quarterly, or that a package in quarterly has a security vulnerabilit= y, the fix is in HEAD but no one merges the security fix into quarterly (e.= g. Postgres). So increasingly I feel like quarterly serves no purpose excep= t to freeze for three months, even if it's broken. > I think if anything is broken in quarterly and the fix is known (in HEAD)= it should be MFH. I know it is sometimes complicated because of cross depe= ndencies, but other cases are simple. >=20 > Are some rules for MFH to quarterly defined in handbook or somewhere else= ? >=20 > Kind regards > Miroslav Lachman >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 ------=_Part_2387_1003036883.1726076301169 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head></head><body>Has this py-OpenSSL issue been resolved already?<d= iv>If not, I can take a look in the near future. </div><div><br></div>= <div>Regards,</div><div>Ronald.</div><div><br><p><small><strong>Van:</stron= g> Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz><br><strong>Datum:</strong> 24 = augustus 2024 23:45<br><strong>Aan:</strong> ports@freebsd.org<br><strong>C= C:</strong> cross+freebsd@distal.com<br><strong>Onderwerp:</strong> Re: Qua= rterly 13.3 amd64 package inconsistency?<br></small></p><blockquote style= =3D"margin-left: 5px; border-left: 3px solid #ccc; margin-right: 0px; paddi= ng-left: 5px;"><div class=3D"MessageRFC822Viewer" id=3D"P"><!-- P --> <!-- processMimeMessage --><div class=3D"TextPlainViewer" id=3D"P.P"><!-- P= .P -->On 24/08/2024 19:48, Chris Ross wrote:<br> <br> [..]<br> <br> >>> I haven't tested that software nor confirmed version dependenc= ies. The ports tree shows the versions in the trees as mentioned but does n= ot have a version requirement checked for dependencies.<br> >><br> >> Dependency info referenced above. Is there perhaps an issue = with the<br> >> py-openssl port then?<br> > <br> > Coming back to this. I temporarily switched my pkg config to use= latest<br> > instead of quarterly, which allowed me to pull in pyopenssl 24.1.0.1<b= r> > and I am now running. However, I think the problem still exists = in<br> > quarterly, and should be corrected.<br> > <br> > I=E2=80=99ll drop it if no-one else cares, but it seems a "broken wind= ow=E2=80=9D that<br> > should be fixed.<br> <br> We use quarterly packages on all our machines and more and more often I see= that something is broken in quarterly and the fix never makes it from HEAD= to quarterly, or that a package in quarterly has a security vulnerability,= the fix is in HEAD but no one merges the security fix into quarterly (e.g.= Postgres). So increasingly I feel like quarterly serves no purpose except = to freeze for three months, even if it's broken.<br> I think if anything is broken in quarterly and the fix is known (in HEAD) i= t should be MFH. I know it is sometimes complicated because of cross depend= encies, but other cases are simple.<br> <br> Are some rules for MFH to quarterly defined in handbook or somewhere else?<= br> <br> Kind regards<br> Miroslav Lachman<br> <br> </div><!-- TextPlainViewer --> <hr> </div><!-- MessageRFC822Viewer --> </blockquote><br><br><br></div></body></html> ------=_Part_2387_1003036883.1726076301169--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1583439132.2388.1726076301178>