[RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

demelier.david at gmail.com demelier.david at gmail.com
Fri Jun 23 09:35:06 UTC 2017

On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 10:38 +0200, Vlad K. wrote:
> But again, that's all doable without having to introduce new 
> infrastructure. The ports tree as is can be maintained like this and 
> quarterly repos would NOT be required. All it's needed is for 
> maintainers to keep a stable version and a latest version. There's 
> already plenty of ports done like that, otoh postfix and 
> postfix-current, nginx and nginx-devel, etc...

Yes but again if not all ports follow this system, we still have the
problem of having potential major upgrades.

> Because the BIGGEST problem in maintaining separate "stable" or LTS 
> branches is BACKPORTING fixes for ports in the #2 category, ie.
> those 
> that mix new features with fixes, so you have to CHERRY PICK only
> the 
> fix and BACKPORT it to your "stable" branch. And that's even more
> work 
> often introducing NEW bugs.

Release branches do not need backports.

> BTW, the problem of the original post could've been avoided if the
> user 
> only read UPDATING which clearly stated that www/node becomes 7 and 
> previous node (6) becomes www/node6.  (20161207) entry.

Completely off topic, if you upgrade the ports tree, you should update
all your packages as doing partial upgrades is even worse (shared
library rebuilds for instance).

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list