Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 05:14:55 -0800 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze Message-ID: <200712010514.55274.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <200712010308.43873.david@vizion2000.net> References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <4750F55B.9030604@highperformance.net> <200712010308.43873.david@vizion2000.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 01 December 2007 Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> answered part = of=20 the question: > On Friday 30 November 2007 21:47:07 Jason C. Wells wrote: > > Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:04:14PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > > >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:50:02AM -0800, Jason C. Wells wrote: > > >>> It wouldn't surprise me if portmanager is hoping that KDE 4.0 will = go > > >>> prime time real soon. That's my big conspiracy theory. >> > >> >> > >> package builds out the door. The Razor, and past experience, would >> > >> suggest that sweeping changes would delay all that significantly. >> > > >> > > As a corollary, KDE4 will not hit the ports tree until after 7.0 and >> > > 6.3 are released. =2E> > >> > We lucked out last time and got current updates of both gnome and kde. >> > >> > "It would be a pleasant surprise if portmgr were able to take KDE 4.0 = to >> > prime time real soon." >> > >> > Later, >>>Jason >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> I must say I am having difficulty understanding the policies applicable >> during ports freeze. >> > What criteria are used to determine whether an update is allowed or barred > during the freeze? Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> answered part of the question with this=20 interjection: >David Southwell p=C3=AD=C5=A1e v so 01. 12. 2007 v 03:08 -0800: >> What criteria are used to determine whether an update is allowed or barr= ed=20 >> during the freeze?=20 >1) Security update >2) Build fix on one of the release platforms >3) Major runtime fix > This seems sensible unless: a) The freeze is unduly long (I would suggest more than two weeks) AND b) There is a major upgrade of a port which is used by a large proportion o= f=20 users. In which case I believe such major upgrades should be favourably considered= =2E=20 Such a policy would reflect the fact that there are many users who need to= =20 keep their systems up to date (especially when they workin communities wher= e=20 multiple operating systems are in use). Allowing port freezes to extend for= =20 long periods should not IMHO be allowed to conflict with the need to keep=20 major ports updated. This puts added weight to my second question to which I am hoping for some= =20 response: >> The freeze seems to be of longer duration than originally expected while >> the current inconvenience seems to growing exponentially. I appreciate t= he >> long term benefits so please do not think I am in any way critical of th= ose >> who are working on this. >> >> I would hgowever like to ask, on the basis of what is being learned now, >> how could the length freezes be diminished on future occasions? >> Thanks David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200712010514.55274.david>