Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:44:44 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Erich Dollansky <erich@apsara.com.sg> Subject: Re: Ports completely and permanently hosed Message-ID: <d873d5be0908061744p5ad99a79o853f46e1a6c7ea33@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Erich Dollansky wrote: >I think that you hit the weakest point of FreeBSD. When a version >number of a base port changes, hundreds or even thousands of >ports have to be recompiled. It is basically the same effect as >when the major version number of FreeBSD changes. The same is true of almost any build-from-source distribution that uses shared libraries, not just FreeBSD. >If this would be synchronised with the main FreeBSD releases, it >would have a minor effect on users. No one is _forcing_ you to update anything, or even to use ports at all. You can use binary packages from a number of packaging systems, including FreeBSD Ports, or roll your own. You can fix on a particular point in the Ports repository, and grab that snapshot using date tags, rather than the most recent versions of everything. You can selectively update certain ports while holding others back in your private repo. You can better manage your updates by using scheduling, suspend/resume, etc. You can do any manner of things that suit your needs. But please don't attempt to slow needed development by making *(&@Q%#%@!!!! suggestions like this. If you need a seat-belt, put it on -- but don't wrap it around everyone's neck. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d873d5be0908061744p5ad99a79o853f46e1a6c7ea33>