Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 06:17:06 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> Cc: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru>, Kevin Eliuk <kevin_eliuk@sunshine.net>, FreeBSD-Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, peter@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Error installing pine-3.96 Message-ID: <11118.859817826@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:14:56 EST." <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970331080026.290I-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally amiss with the > principle that ports are only supported on an unreleased version > of the operating system used by a minority of the user base? Uh.. Yeah, there is, basically. Historically the party line has been "we don't have enough volunteers to support multiple branches so we only support -current" and people grumbled a bit but seemed to generally accept this with 2.1.x. I don't think that they're going to be so generous with 2.2.x, especially given that we're only now *starting* that branch and will probably run it for a good 6-9 months. If even 10% of the "3.0 ports" break under 2.2.x, there will be howls. I'm not necessarily advocating going the multi-branch route and imposing the same disciplines on ports/ that we have on src/, either (though that may eventually be necessary and I'm not saying anything either way on that yet), but it would be nice if ports maintainers made a special effort to see that a port compiled under *both* branches of the OS. Most porters are probably running 2.2 anyway, and if thud will start staying up more than 4-5 hours at a time, we can have them test the 3.0 operability there. Thoughts? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?11118.859817826>