Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:54:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@iki.fi> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ion3 license violation Message-ID: <slrnfm23rn.a4v.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> References: <slrnflv329.e47.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> <20071213104253.GE60068@fasolt.home.paeps.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2007-12-13, Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> wrote: > I have not gone awol. I replied to your email about the port being out of > date the day after you sent it. Closer to two days... > It is not particularly difficult to comply with the licence. It just takes > a bit of time (which I'm happy to spend) to keep up with new releases. Of > course, sometimes new releases will coincide with ports freezes. This time the thaw came quite in time (or did I cause it?-), and maybe the period could have been even a bit longer if people would communicate about such things. However, there's still the problem of binary packages ending up in the release snapshots without prominent notices of obsoleteness. I don't think RCs and development snapshots should end up there at all. That's the problem with distros' megafreezes: you can't sync the development of thousands of packages. And as for stable releases, even they should get bugfixes promptly. Maybe the 28 day limit can be relaxed in such cases a bit, but even half a year may be too long -- two years like with Debian is certainly too long. It depends on the bug at hand: segfaults should be fixed very promptly, whereas minor glitches are not that big deal. -- Tuomo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnfm23rn.a4v.tuomov>