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

Torsten Zuehlsdorff mailinglists at toco-domains.de
Wed Jun 28 09:08:54 UTC 2017

On 27.06.2017 15:24, scratch65535 at att.net wrote:
> [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.

It really depends. For example only www/gitlab needed 400 ports (!) and 
its a while i checked.
Without a defined list of supported software this is only wishing ;)


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list