old ports/packages

[William A. Mahaffey III]

On 06/04/16 09:24, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 14:50, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>> On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a
>>>> longer support cycle.
>>> Remember though that this model is changing with 11.0 release.  With the
>>> new model, it's the 11.x family as a whole that has the long term
>>> support and individual releases such as 11.0 or 11.1 will cease to be
>>> supported very shortly after the next release in that series comes out.
>>> The last release in that series will then have a long support life so
>>> that 11.x as a whole has something like a 5 year lifecycle[*].  The
>>> transitions from 11.0 -> 11.1 -> 11.2 -> ... are meant to be something
>>> you could apply pretty much routinely; much as you'ld apply a new
>>> patch-level today.
>>>
>>>      Cheers,
>>>
>>>      Matthew
>>>
>>> [*] which is pretty much the same length as the the lifecycle of
>>> previous major branches has been up to now.
>>>
>> Is there somewhere any more information available about this change?
>>
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-announce/2015-February/001624.html
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8991960
>
> 	Cheers,
>
> 	Matthew
>
>


One point of order if I may: It was stated earlier in the thread that 
binary compatibility throughout a major release cycle (X.n-R, as 'n' 
varies) is a specification. That is not explicitly addressed in the 
above URL's, as far as I can see. Is that indeed considered a 
specification ? If so, it would seem to satisfy the LTS desire 
implicitly. TIA & have a good one.


-- 

	William A. Mahaffey III

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

	"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
	 ever devised by man."
                            -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.