[RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version
scratch65535 at att.net
scratch65535 at att.net
Tue Jun 27 13:26:09 UTC 2017
[Default] On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:33:50 +0000, Grzegorz Junka
<list1 at gjunka.com> wrote:
>we could
>start small with a just a handful of ports in a stable LTS (Long Term
>Support) branch. Develop processes around maintaining them, get some
>feedback about the effort of applying only security fixes, then add more
>ports as required or as viable from the resources point of view. How
>does that sound?
It sounds excellent, at least to me.
How many platform roles are seen as fbsd's metier?
Firewall? Already handled.
Specialist workstations such as sound/video editing? Maybe. I
don't know enough about that to have an opinion.
Servers. No question. That's always been freebsd's best thing.
The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large.
Unnecessarily complex and a source of uncontrolled errors, yes,
but not really *large* qua large.
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list