FreeBSD Port: rdiff-backup

Danny Pansters danny at
Sun Apr 17 18:13:11 PDT 2005

On Monday 18 April 2005 02:50, Nick Muerdter wrote:
> Hi,
> This is in regards to your maintainership of the rdiff-backup port for
> FreeBSD. I have a few minor quibbles. First, the 0.13 branch is still
> the development branch, so it doesn't quite make sense to move the
> entire port to that. Perhaps a separate port for the development
> branch? Secondly, and more generally, both the development and stable
> branch have been updated.
> Yes, I enjoy complaining to people about their free work. ;) I would
> normally try to help out or fix it myself, but I'm busy (and of course
> you're not :p ), and I  have several machines at work using this, so
> doing custom port files seems a tad messy
> In any case, thanks if you can do something about this, no biggie if
> not.
> Nick Muerdter

I don't know about this port, but IMHO there are too many *-develop ports as 
it is already. It's mostly duplicate work and it helps only few. 

I'm also using a development snapshot for the current version of py-kde, but 
yeah, I could also have devel versions for the 3 dependencies. But the point 
is... what's the point. Im using it because I have to, and you can have 
stable distfiles by hosting them if needed, that way you get to be in control 
of updates whatever the upstream source does. This is about QA versus having 
bleeding-edge really. I'd say choose but don't insist to have both. You don't 
use seperate devel tarballs just because, well, because they're there.

Unless you really have a good reason to have *-devel ports, they should become 
less rather than more IMO. *-develop is often (though not always) a result of 
a maintainer not being able to make up his/her mind. In any event it's 
confusing for end-users to have more than one.

Just my EUR 0.02,


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list