From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 25 17:49:57 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC2316A4CE for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:49:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from box7954.elkhouse.de (box7954.elkhouse.de [213.9.79.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6966743D6E for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:49:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from roman@ontographics.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (1Cust156.vr1.dtm1.alter.net [149.229.96.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by box7954.elkhouse.de (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PHpBqv016722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:51:13 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from roman@ontographics.com) From: Roman Kennke To: Gary Kline In-Reply-To: <20041025173456.GA95850@thought.org> References: <1098641975.705.10.camel@moonlight> <20041025083705.GA16273@anembo.nu.org> <20041025173456.GA95850@thought.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098726535.672.4.camel@moonlight> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:48:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Matthias Andree cc: Christopher Vance cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELEASE_X_Y_Z branches/tags maintained?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:49:57 -0000 Am Mo, den 25.10.2004 schrieb Gary Kline um 19:34: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:45:21AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote: > > Am Mo, den 25.10.2004 schrieb Christopher Vance um 10:37: > > > >> > I have a question regarding the branches/tags of the ports tree for > > > >> > stable releases. Are they in any way maintained. For instance I would > > > >> > like to see security fixes and corrections like changed download URLs be > > > >> > committed there. > > > > > > You have a choice between > > > > > > (1) a system with fewer packages/ports, but each one related to > > > several supported OS versions, > > > > > > or > > > > > > (2) a system with more packages/ports, but they're not tied to any OS version. > > > > > > If you want something like (1) on FreeBSD, you can always capture the > > > ports tree as it was when your OS version was released (it's even > > > tagged for you) and update only those parts you care about. You get > > > to follow any advisories yourself (try portaudit). But if it breaks, > > > you get to fix all the pieces yourself. > > > > Maybe, if there is _enough_ interest, somebody (starting with me??) > > could start a separate (from FreeBSD) project, that aims to maintain a > > stable FreeBSD ports tree. It could start out with a subset of ports, > > architectures and OS versions for the beginning, and scale when > > resources are available. It could occasionally grab a tagged ports tree > > and develop a stable version out of it. > > > > What do you think? > > > I think your idea has lots of merit, Roman--to stick my > two cents' worth in. Porting isn't that hard once you've > found and fixed <> problems. Most bugs aren't that > hard to fix; some are bloody murder. After that, to create > a port for FBSD is a lot of grungy detail work. For > example, creating the patch files, then the new > distfiles and the ancillary files that make certain > that everything Just-Works{tm}. yeah I know, I have created a _few_ ports myself. > Once you've done a few ports--either your own hacking > or someone else's--creating a port gets pretty easy. > Takes a few hours/port/architecture. Before aiming for > a separate project, it may pay to work within the ports > group for awhile. I'm just thinking over some ideas. Another idea is to go with NetBSDs pkgsrc instead, they also support FreeBSD and have a stable branch (although this needs some work to be maintained). The wheel hasn't to be reinvented X times ;-) /Roman