Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:22:01 +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: <20170622122201.cdnwly6qcev3eqav@ivaldir.net> In-Reply-To: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--lxtwp5reqvco6d2m Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:18:56PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > 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. >=20 > As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the= number > of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain= , it is > only one branch). >=20 > 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 bra= nch? >=20 > Bapt Oh and of course the day you freeze a branch you will have complain about "= how do I get python 3.8 on freebsd 11.0" Bapt --lxtwp5reqvco6d2m Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEgOTj3suS2urGXVU3Y4mL3PG3PloFAllLtmgACgkQY4mL3PG3 PlpVbw/+L12cQigcuDiizgI2V6gCzwv9qoh4oyRWHgZAi/iBk4fBNonuB3TnrCZ8 9kluoeGRQ00fjL5Mwbdjr7nxS30hikanJuIZWvyBiqe7JCybEJsV3wdGUsi7N2aV 19G9Fxa85Gt1uZhEJm4hZPtEOpFtqY170DGeKAX7ZprLdZx6Wj6G2clqS7kd7fHA wcyo2WFzrHZpM0D+vqD9m9yLhWS9Z/0vGzFfqIJ7Prn6P/bm0s/Afil466dEzrE8 npKJJ4wikAheNRZQyq4MunCwm1DBjAga5Zh3/9Sy38Cxw7m3cD8V2WqZVS6k6AMq s/sAdiJm8zav8bv0zsiqJu1oZLA60uOIFNCK0uEckZvYZPHk6P4H1Oixnk8mrMwL RzadGNbP0QOhvULn1b9RMswTVxB1HGX+BFPzpdOaJASRYATkMljnOJVuat2Py2Dh cGmqWHyXcsgxr6YDGW+qciWTOwd8JXRafW/3tEwsypSmALvSf5efdmzZZAN4zpwo Zmp2vtvo2iXWdguDjHBrGk0WhLgFvxSK2Acj3zP1aaVvwEDNm+bP//6q6E0DdhYe 6sfXBX11ZDMy0BnQMNxUsvVAJACR61CYhrqhKdeSCmLJpojTIBzINgKHwDQLOWcX aD7Mvik0hMqKNYwY9JKkD421lsbUYLweENzX8S0PUCb1JY9/sfk= =Q87a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lxtwp5reqvco6d2m--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170622122201.cdnwly6qcev3eqav>