FREEBSD_4_EOL tag, last known index file?
peterjeremy at optushome.com.au
Mon Jul 16 12:00:25 UTC 2007
On 2007-Jul-15 16:59:33 -0700, Jonathan Dama <jd at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Strictly speaking the EOL means that the base has been abandoned by the
>security officer and the ports collection, not that it is abandoned entirely.
The ports tree is not branched. (The reasons for this can be found in
the archives). The ports build infrastructure, as well as individual
ports, need to include whatever special-casing is necessary to make
them build on all supported releases. Maintaining all this glue takes
effort, slows down all the builds and makes the ports harder to read.
Once support for RELENG_4 was removed, there was no longer a
requirement for the ports tree to be buildable and the glue to make it
build on 4.x could be (and, in many cases, has been) removed.
Specifically, the core ports infrastructure (ports/Mk) is known to now
be incompatible with 4.x.
>People with commit access may still make contributions into RELENG_4...
Yes but that doesn't cover the ports tree.
>Anyways I'm only trying to act within the constraints that I've been given.
>My mandate does not include upgrading to RELENG_6 so your advice is not
Please keep in mind that FreeBSD is a volunteer project. I believe
that it provides a very professional level of support at no cost.
When FreeBSD 4.11 was released in January 2005, it was announced that
it would be the last release off the RELENG_4 branch and that it would
be supported for 2 years - this EOL date was regularly repeated. Note
that 4.11 post-dates FreeBSD 5.3 (which could reasonably be considered
a mature RELENG_5 release) and the EOL date provided an 8 month
overlap with FreeBSD 6.1 (for those who dislike .0 releases). IMO,
this is more than adequate notice to allow a planned migration.
Note that whilst the FreeBSD Project no longer provides support for
4.x, there is nothing stopping you negotiating whatever level of
support you require from one of the consultants listed on the FreeBSD
site, or elsewhere. Likewise, there's no rule that says you must build
third-party software using the ports system. You are free to maintain
third-party software using its native configuration mechanisms.
If you feel that the FreeBSD project is being unreasonable, please
try (eg) asking Sun for support for SunOS 4.1.3.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20070716/29625cb4/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-stable