Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:42:25 -0700 From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcw@speakeasy.net> To: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: SVN RELEASE_9_2_0 Message-ID: <52648681.1090109@speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <CAMuy=%2BirK-Vrc9HhF3j0be7p=RCEnxm2S=9JteG5kbKV9jJ=_w@mail.gmail.com> References: <524A0FE5.6010808@speakeasy.net> <CAMuy=%2BirK-Vrc9HhF3j0be7p=RCEnxm2S=9JteG5kbKV9jJ=_w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Today I tripped over another package that had broken dependencies even thought It was supposedly a package that was from 9.2-RELEASE release process. It was celestia, installed from 9.2-release packages, which depended on libpangox.so.1. I tried to roll my own. The build was broken too. My question still stands. Is FreeBSD now building packages prior to the actual tagging of the ports tree as RELEASE_9_2_0? It seems like this is the case since the dates of the packages in the FTP archive pre-date the release date. For many many releases now I have run only unmodified -release with the equivalent ports. And it was good. Now I'm having issues with the quality of the ports. I am concerned that it is due to a failure in the release process. I might be wrong. If I'm not, then my request is to not put the cart before the horse and ship ports labelled in the FTP archive as -release when they are really just a snapshot of a point in time close the release date. That's very unFreeBSD like. i.e.: freeze it build it fix it build it no errors? no changes? tag it ship it It seems like we skipped freeze it, fix it, and check for errors. We just built it and shipped it, then later we tagged it for release. Or maybe we never did the above and I personally just got lucky for 4 major versions. I do seem to recall things like "ports freeze" on the RE schedule. Regards, Jason C. Wells
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52648681.1090109>