Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:39:16 +0200 From: "Vlad K." <vlad-fbsd@acheronmedia.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <d7c9866f89bb1dd76485383199e6cbad@acheronmedia.com> 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
On 2017-06-22 14:15, David Demelier wrote: > > While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree > before installing a new service and I faced some troubles: What works best for us, to keep a stable production, is to track the HEAD with svn. That way we can pre-empt changes locally, test, and deploy into production, or block upstream changes by keeping some older version until something else is fixed. Otherwise as others have suggested, the problem is manpower and backporting patches. Although, in my experience having run both Ubuntu LTS and FreeBSD in production, when a maintainer, who is not the developer of some software, tries to backport patches, it often results in regressions and even more problems introduced. So I'd rather use rolling release directly from the developers with minimal local changes. A rolling release with clearly marked stable versions kept longer around (ala Gentoo), is the best way to solve the problem with ports without introducing extra manpower and the need to backport. -- Vlad K.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d7c9866f89bb1dd76485383199e6cbad>