Ability for maintainers to update own ports

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Nov 10 18:19:35 PST 2003

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:16:51PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:

> The first can be satisfied with something like pkgsrc-wip, and I always
> wondered why we don't have a ports-FRESH and ports-TESTED, like we have

Because even with a single, unbranched ports collection, committers
can't keep it in working order without significant ongoing effort.  On
average, several ports become broken on one of the supported
architectures and versions, *each day*.  That's not counting the
periodic "cataclysmic events" where hundreds of ports become broken
due to e.g. a change in -current, and not counting errors introduced
in the course of development work on the ports collection

If you start adding more branches to the ports collection, you're
going to multiply the possible failure modes, and the net result will
be that the number of errors accumulating in the ports collection will
more than multiply.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20031110/4642b40e/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list