Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:26:35 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de>, Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Cc: Jules Gilbert via freebsd-pkg <freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Archives of last quarterly package builds? Message-ID: <4d810e3d-955c-5ee7-09da-46b6bc1b6ae2@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201539A4-078E-4884-8FEB-CB512F9E4DBD@ultra-secure.de> References: <CAD2Ti28J1UTKkLETgj0vJerHBX3SKOgpAOp6UkrhOR76TGpT%2Bg@mail.gmail.com> <34cb48da-1f15-1610-966d-1e30314f7665@freebsd.org> <CAD2Ti2--zdv4e_QvSfHL1prDAnGZyTvNYMzzgA_V%2B3LN6_RTEQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180803031744.GH2118@home.opsec.eu> <a6dda209-dc35-99ba-a87d-8035c2932df0@freebsd.org> <20180804063919.GI2118@home.opsec.eu> <201539A4-078E-4884-8FEB-CB512F9E4DBD@ultra-secure.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/8/18 9:09 pm, Rainer Duffner wrote: > > >> Am 04.08.2018 um 08:39 schrieb Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org >> <mailto:pi@freebsd.org>>: >> >> The idea is: use the quarterlies, and if the next quarter comes, >> upgrade to that quarterly. The quarterlies are a way to test >> if we can provide some 'more stable tree' than HEAD for the ports. >> >> It's not perfect, and we all learn the use cases and the issues etc. >> >> I don't have the overview over all the posts on that issues, so: >> is there a text that describes alternative approaches ? Something >> where implementation can be discussed ? > My issue is that just as it starts to get the bugs wrinkled out of it, it's deleted. I gave up. and now we mirror the ports tree in house and do a build of all the packages at a given revision on the head branch, and then OCCASIONALLY we slide a single package forward (or back) if we were unfortunate in our snapshot and caught it with a bug/problem. > > > The problem is that different people have different foci. > > I think it’s assumed that one hosts and maintains his (or her) own > copy of the ports-tree and maintains it according to one’s own > focus-points. > > E.g.: if I was to maintain my own fork of the ports-tree, I’d lay > the emphasis on a number of ports that greatly concern me (apache, > php, nginx, varnish, python and some of its base-ports, plugins for > nagios and some other stuff I’ve forgotten). I’d basically follow > upstream with those very closely. > The rest, I’d let dormant most of the time, unless a > security-vulnerability made an update inevitable. > > But I’m really not in a position to do that, so I use the quarterly > cuts. They are a good compromise. > > Sometimes, I copy over a port from HEAD to my quarterly checkout > because I really want to have the update in. But that has become > rare, actually. > > > Different people have different requirements. > I think if you need very high stability, you’ll likely end up using > something else (CentOS+ Software Collections - or Ubuntu, if you’re > really desperate...) > > Certainly, someone from the foundation or some other company has > done the math on what it would take (man-power and financials) to > maintain certain subsets of the ports for longer than three months. > Or everything. > > It will, however, be almost impossible to get it right for everybody. > > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4d810e3d-955c-5ee7-09da-46b6bc1b6ae2>