[RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version
baho-utot at columbus.rr.com
Thu Jun 22 15:25:45 UTC 2017
On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
> <bapt at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number
>> of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it is
>> only one branch).
> Please help me out here, Baptiste, because I'm apparently missing
> Out in industry, if you haven't enough people to do a new
> high-quality release every N months, and you can't get a
> headcount increase, then you cut the release schedule. Can't do
> 4 releases a year? Cut back to 2. Still too many? Cut back to
> The alternatives to cutting the schedule are that (a) people
> begin burning out and quitting, (b) quality drops and your
> customer base begins abandoning you, or (c) both of the above.
> Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
I am looking at OpenBSD to replace FreeBSD. They have a more relaxed
update schedule and that fits with what I need.
I am looking for a system that is very stable and doesn't do the upgrade
path for the sake of it being newer.
Having a "releng ports" version that goes with a releng version of the
OS would be great by me. Linux from scratch does this and it works
very well. Why not have the ports system mirror the OS system? Could
it not be done by using branches in subversion? Of course if changed it
would have to mature out a little.
If the laptop that I have under testing pans out I be gone.
More information about the freebsd-ports