duration of the ports freeze

David Southwell david at vizion2000.net
Sat Dec 1 09:31:46 PST 2007


On Saturday 01 December 2007 08:48:41 Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 07:49:00AM -0800, David Southwell wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 December 2007 05:58:21 Thierry Thomas wrote:
> > > On Sat  1 dec 07 at 14:25:08 +0100, Erik Trulsson
> > > <ertr1013 at student.uu.se>
> > >
> > >  wrote:
> > > > The ports freeze is intended to make sure the ports tree is in a
> > > > stable and well tested state for the release.  Updating major ports
> > > > always carry a great risk of breaking things thus defeating the point
> > > > of the freeze.
> > >
> > > Anyway, if the freeze is too long, and if the new version is released
> > > several weeks after the thaw, very few will install these packages:
> > > a lot of updates will be committed, and many users will update their
> > > ports tree to install the new versions. This is very difficult to find
> > > a good compromise!
> >
> > I do not think we need a compromise we need a different system. We need
> > one that preserves continuity of support for existing systems while the
> > new releases are testedin a way that does not adversely impact them. The
> > priority needs to be the current user base not a desire to rush a new
> > release out the door at all costs.

>
> Considering that FreeBSD releases almost always get delayed by several
> weeks compared to the original schedule I think it is safe to say that "a
> desire to rush a new release out the door at all costs" is something that
> the FreeBSD project certainly does not suffer from.

I believe this to be head in the sand logic.IMHO It is rushing it out the door 
at all costs if the cost is a port freeze!!! A port freeze is the most user 
unfriendly act that one could think of!
>
> Now it may be that due to the ports freeze, there will be some ports whose
> upgrade will be delayed for a couple of weeks (not to be confused with
> those ports whose upgrade gets delayed for other reasons.)
> I do not consider this to be a major problem.
>
> I think you vastly overestimate the need for the ports tree to always have
> the latest versions of all softwares contained therein.

The ports system and new release development systems need to move seemlessly 
not interfere with one another. This means a rethink of the fundamental 
assumptions that drive current policies and practice.
>
> In those very rare cases where a user just cannot wait 2-3 weeks extra for
> an upgrade, they can always try to build the software themselves outside
> the ports system.

I regard this view as developer centric rather than user centric. As I have 
said elsewhere the ports system is freebsd msp and users are not naturally 
comnfortable with building outside the ports system. If they were we would 
not need the system!!!

I


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list