Growing list of required(ish) ports

Robert Simmons rsimmons0 at
Tue Apr 9 17:28:45 UTC 2013

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Florent Peterschmitt
<florent at> wrote:
> Le mardi 09 avril 2013 à 13:03 -0400, Robert Simmons a écrit :
>> > Hum, I didn't thought about that. So I think it would be possible to
>> > have a secondary « branch » for the distribution including something
>> > like « special ports » which can be retrieved, built and managed (for
>> > porters) quickly.
>> >
>> > Anybody think something like that is relevant and possible to do ?
>> One thing to note is that these parts of base are kept just about as
>> up-to-date as ports over in the HEAD branch.  In the case of OpenSSH,
>> HEAD is way way more up to date than ports.  These changes are also
>> fairly quickly MFC'd over to stable.  The real hiccup is that these
>> changes don't dribble out of freebsd-update.
> I see. So you suggest to use -STABLE ? Because -RELEASE is aimed to stay
> as frozen (I mean stable and secured) as possible, it makes sens not to
> have updates.

No, stable is just another type of development branch.  It is not
meant for production use.  I'm suggesting that enough testing and QA
be applied to certain updates to be able to offer them as part of

Not sure if this is even possible.  It may go against the philosophy
of RELEASE and it would require resources that are in short supply as

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list