jerry at seibercom.net
Sat Jan 12 13:13:19 UTC 2013
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:30:39 -0500
Glen Barber articulated:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:04:32AM +0000, Chris Rees wrote:
> > >> It will be once the dust settles over the 9.1 release.
> > >
> > > I think the dust has settled.
> > I agree, but I'm not clear on what the "dust" was.
> Same here. As I do not see any, I assume it has either settled or
> never existed at all.
> I like to refer to the phenomenon as "illuminatiware."
I have a suggestion that might please at least a few users of Bash. I
believe it could follow the "Postfix" model. "sahil at FreeBSD.org"
maintains the "mail/postfix-current" port and keeps it in sync with
Postfix releases in virtual real time. He also maintains the normal
stable release version of Postfix, "mail/postfix".
Bash has not been kept in sync with the stable releases for several
years now. I realize that "obrien at FreeBSD.org" is undoubtedly extremely
busy and does not have the time to spend on testing and maintaining
this port on a daily basis. I would therefore suggest that he create a
"bash-current" or what ever nomenclature suits him and keeps that port
in sync with the latest patches, etcetera of Bash as they become
available. "Bash" patches are released as part of their stable releases
anyway so there should not be a problem. A simple warning that this
port has not been declared "SAFE" by the maintainer is all that would
be need. A user would therefore be fully aware that there might be
serious implications to the use of this port. At some point, when the
maintainer feels it is advisable to move the "current" branch into the
"stable" branch, he my do so.
I was also thinking of another option; however, I do not know if it is
feasible. It would require having a base level set for the patch level
-- in this case 37. Have that as the default. Then have an option to
download all available patches and update bash. I don't know how this
would be handles, but it might eliminate some of the rather long waits
between releases in the ports system.
Well, that is my 2¢ on the matter.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
More information about the freebsd-ports