Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:14:10 +0700 From: Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com> To: Erich <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> Cc: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, "freebs >> Current FreeBSD" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? Message-ID: <4FCB38F2.4030505@ateamsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <2421561.4aJcXPZZxh@x220.ovitrap.com> References: <C480320C-0CD9-4B61-8AFB-37085C820AB7@FreeBSD.org> <4FCA0B5F.5010500@digsys.bg> <4FCA20C5.6010901@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <2421561.4aJcXPZZxh@x220.ovitrap.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote: > What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD? > > I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible. > > I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix? I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues! And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that is the solution. I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying "need" for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCB38F2.4030505>