[RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 22.06.2017 21:56, Baho Utot wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/22/2017 11:30 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
>> On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
>>>> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
>>>> <bapt at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to 
>>>>> handle the number
>>>>> of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to 
>>>>> maintain, it is
>>>>> only one branch).
>>>> Please help me out here, Baptiste, because I'm apparently missing
>>>> *something*.
>>>>
>>>> Out in industry, if you haven't enough people to do a new
>>>> high-quality release every N months, and you can't get a
>>>> headcount increase, then you cut the release schedule.  Can't do
>>>> 4 releases a year?  Cut back to 2.  Still too many?  Cut back to
>>>> 1.
>>>>
>>>> The alternatives to cutting the schedule are that (a) people
>>>> begin burning out and quitting, (b) quality drops and your
>>>> customer base begins abandoning you, or (c) both of the above.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't the same choices apply here?  What am I missing?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am looking at OpenBSD to replace FreeBSD.  They have a more relaxed 
>>> update schedule and that fits with what I need.
>>
>> Go ahead with whatever fits your needs.
>>
>> But since the ports-tree is a subversion repository it is really easy 
>> to maintain the status you want. I do this for various customer and my 
>> various server.
>>
>>> I am looking for a system that is very stable and doesn't do the 
>>> upgrade path for the sake of it being newer.
>>
>> Which has various downsides. I remember for example various linux LTS 
>> distros, which only apply security fixes. I discovered various bugs 
>> which stay there for years, because they are not security issues - 
>> they just hurt you daily. :D
> 
> No not really I ran LFS servers and desktops for 10 years

This does not mean that you're hit by the bugs i am. The most recent 
example is a bug in curl parsing a #. This was introduced via a security 
fix in Ubuntu and make use of '#' in passwords for htaccess impossible, 
until you use new curl releases. Which are not available on Ubuntu 16 
LTS for some more years.

>>> Having a "releng ports" version that goes with a releng version of 
>>> the OS would be great by me.   Linux from scratch does this and it 
>>> works very well. 
>>
>> It really does not work well. In everyday situation this results in 
>> "heck we need a new server to get a new version of a needed software, 
>> because we need a new linux version".
>> I regularly seeing admins setting up different Ubuntu versions, 
>> because at one you have PHP 7 and on the other MySQL 5.7, but not both 
>> at the same Ubuntu version.
> 
> BSD != Linux so your comparison is invalid.

No, that is the point of my comparison. Luckily BSD != Linux and also 
the various distributions schemes of updates having there up- and downsides.
But in such discussions its often that only the own use-case is 
mentioned. And i want to widen the scope.

Greetings,
Torsten