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!!!


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list