"stable" ports?

Dominic Fandrey kamikaze at bsdforen.de
Tue Mar 30 06:19:09 UTC 2010

On 29/03/2010 17:57, Ivan Voras wrote:
> One way to do it, my proposal, would be to maintain a stable "overlay"
> of the ports, one for each major supported branch (i.e. 6.x, 7.x, 8.x),
> containing ports deemed "important" for some reason.

Who would be doing the additional work? I figure we'd need
additional maintainers for the different branches.

I don't see myself maintaining several branches of my ports, apart
from ioquake3 and ioquake3-devel.


A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? 

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list