Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:26:31 +0400 From: Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org> To: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again Message-ID: <20060817052631.GB62148@underworld.novel.ru> In-Reply-To: <44E34BF8.2020104@gmx.de> References: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> <44E34BF8.2020104@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > And why is it that you always need to run the very latest version? Just > pick the last package that was available. It's normally new enough. Where have I said I need _lastest_ version of everything? You got it totally wrong. I do not need lastest version of packages, I just want packages were consistant and working, that's all. =20 > > 2. Port tree is unstable > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > There's always something that can go wrong, especially if you deal with > messy ports that require a compatibility layer. But native builds cause > problems very rarely. > =20 > > II Solutions > >=20 > > Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I > > propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it,=20 > > so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all=20 > > patches to HEAD first. Then they wait for two things: > > - For next run on pointyhat to find out if package builds well > > (for a start, we could wait only for 6.x/i386 builds) > > - User feedback. Like, if there's no complains like "ahh, it > > broke everyhting, ahaha, please backout!", so everything's ok >=20 > What about security critical changes? Would you push them through that > process as well? Read the portupgrade man page and look for the '-b' > flag. Security changes could be backported faster (but they should be reviewed and tested better). > If you want a branched system, why not use PKGSRC? Because I want to use freebsd ports, not pkgsrc. I'm familiar with it and I work with it for several years. =20 > > ... > >=20 > > Comments are welcome! >=20 > It is normally not necessary to have the very latest version of everythin= g. > With your approach you wouldn't really receive binaries earlier. Only > people who are willing to build ports themselves receive the ports later. It looks like you see only what you want to see, but not that I actually wrote. I propose creating STABLE branch because I prefer to have more stable and better tested software than new, but not enough stable software. --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBROP+B4B0WzgdqspGAQK72wP8CM+jzoIxcNC6CPgUOKY88PBthFLNHlyA w/zFNjSBiV/kR3cj8Q++8lKXAb5zOc1yJ6/yVn6FkBuinEOjbE2CQ/wra9rqNx0b GcJf5AHuRd9nILMB2pSeFfCh+EymqVWEeZOQi/JgsN0H1MqvC8ev11fet57QF1Mn MyoeV48rJ04= =0Ts6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060817052631.GB62148>