Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:56:00 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@mail.ru> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again Message-ID: <20060818105600.GA6359@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> References: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Roman Bogorodskiy (novel@freebsd.org) wrote: > 2. Port tree is unstable > > IMO, port tree is not very stable. I mean: we're all human and more or > less often make mistakes and inaccurate commits. So you cannot be sure > that if you cvsup/portsnap your tree, it will not break something > (e.g. because of some typo). It's OK to have such errors in general, and > we can do nothing with it, but there are a lot of silly errors which > could be avoided and you definitely don't deal with on a stable system. I won't call it unstable. I myself have 3 FreeBSD boxes with about 600 ports installed on each. Two boxes are updated regularily, anoher one have some ports outdated - for all those I can't remember any problems for 2-3 years. If there actually are any breakages, I don't think they cost the effort of maintaining branched ports tree. -- Best regards, Dmitry mailto:amdmi3@mail.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060818105600.GA6359>