From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Mar 31 06:23:23 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA19532
          for ports-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 06:23:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA19510;
          Mon, 31 Mar 1997 06:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA11122; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 06:17:06 -0800 (PST)
To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>
cc: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru>,
        Kevin Eliuk <kevin_eliuk@sunshine.net>,
        FreeBSD-Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, peter@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Error installing pine-3.96 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:14:56 EST."
             <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970331080026.290I-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> 
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 06:17:06 -0800
Message-ID: <11118.859817826@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally amiss with the
> principle that ports are only supported on an unreleased version
> of the operating system used by a minority of the user base? 

Uh..  Yeah, there is, basically.

Historically the party line has been "we don't have enough volunteers
to support multiple branches so we only support -current" and people
grumbled a bit but seemed to generally accept this with 2.1.x.  I
don't think that they're going to be so generous with 2.2.x,
especially given that we're only now *starting* that branch and will
probably run it for a good 6-9 months.  If even 10% of the "3.0 ports"
break under 2.2.x, there will be howls.

I'm not necessarily advocating going the multi-branch route and
imposing the same disciplines on ports/ that we have on src/, either
(though that may eventually be necessary and I'm not saying anything
either way on that yet), but it would be nice if ports maintainers
made a special effort to see that a port compiled under *both*
branches of the OS.  Most porters are probably running 2.2 anyway, and
if thud will start staying up more than 4-5 hours at a time, we can
have them test the 3.0 operability there.

Thoughts?

					Jordan