[RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version
000.fbsd at quip.cz
Thu Jun 22 22:36:30 UTC 2017
scratch65535 at att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15:
> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon
> <linimon at lonesome.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
>>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
>>> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
>>> a Really Good Thing for everyone.
>> I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the
>> mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being
>> available once per release, or rolling with -head.
> Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes
> of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits
> is a social-status enhancer. **Nobody** with real work to do
> ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken.
And this is where you are so wrong. Ports tree is never in the state
where everything works and has no bugs. (and cannot be, because
upstreams have bugs) Even if it compiles and installs it does not mean
that it is not broken and nobody needs newer version.
Just because your needs are different than others doesn't mean others
More information about the freebsd-ports