Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> In-Reply-To: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--zzyr7xu5gmkw3kyi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:15:02PM +0200, David Demelier wrote: > Hello, >=20 > Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running > FreeBSD 11.0 for a while. >=20 > While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree > before installing a new service and I faced some troubles: >=20 > www/node was updated from 6.x to 7.x: unfortunately my etherpad > instance is not compatible with 7.x. I needed to install www/node6. >=20 > devel/mercurial was updated to 4.2: redmine has a small issue making > repository browsing unavailable. I temporarily downgraded Mercurial to > 4.0. >=20 > I think the current process of having rolling-releases packages makes > unpredictable upgrades as we have to manually check if the upgrade > will be fine or not. When a user installs FreeBSD 11.0 on its system, > it probably expects that everything will work fine until a next major > upgrade like 12.0. That's why I think we really should implement > branches for a specific FreeBSD version. >=20 > When FreeBSD 12.0 is released, we should create a ports branch that > will contains only fixes (such as security advisories, crash fixes and > such). No minor or major upgrades until a new 13.0 version is > released. This is the only way to make safe upgrades. >=20 > If user think that a software is too old (since we have long delay > between major releases) it can still use the default tree at its own > risks. >=20 > Additional benefits of having a ports tree by version: you don't need > to have conditionals in ports Makefiles (how many ports check for > FreeBSD version? a lot). >=20 > Any comments are appreciated. As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the n= umber of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, = it is only one branch). What do you do for security fixes: backport to the stable version? who is backporting to software not maintained upstream any more in the given branc= h? Bapt --zzyr7xu5gmkw3kyi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEgOTj3suS2urGXVU3Y4mL3PG3PloFAllLta0ACgkQY4mL3PG3 Plo7mg//T6StwC/1xXbg/D0LiitCft4k6Ei2MHYvY8FcV2uoHU7SKEQ/iA13BnvE yILZWpf/OEwJ++Ae7WRQI+c2wG9ChTjOvVqMvlAlhJ3neogus6cCU8f9O1Kn1i21 arSIdQjxUSkfgtlRhJUv1LYd/li5EBOMPCnBtKkxWQM8Mxv+6h+qSrA3vJ87WBcG DuVBpl9ahj6V3NHnIHXgSSQdSNw4hrMhaCBIiVgUN88LeClNojQ7U74z5O+x9WOg 8UAZLg19rlC0GN5aeVmMIaZUqH5dLj+9cz2ggm2ikpF+MMfrNi7LnLFucm72FVXO ig3OMD9E65mxIe1oGpL64mrWHj8Xw5zidoMk/ikBX+A9p6/bAh6/lNt1KmckF0v8 GSs6K916Kzm1W2bbOQ1S9BNMyBY9DE/BYgPLASIEVQzlVKpeZz2MqsbISKQ3T8rl ynfQ9wxOIwPLEgdv/8AkCdkl9qFCM5DxXGVrGg9j27GtdSo14weiTaNQO6QvU0J/ FBYae8yUA9pd2Iw+o9A1A1of+goqMhRpfcQvvm+ApikU9rDJmTmtcbIgqB78NZoZ cesuMqmOlSn12G9FjAnxj451K62bfziBkKVoQoJVTEVG+2dkGaiE6AmZe2b8Ryyf +OY4XgXtnAQ4eGTb7rxY05iXx4I+W+Voz2Jv/inPLzKObOs7gf8= =AxvN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zzyr7xu5gmkw3kyi--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3>