From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Jun 22 15:53:45 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA480D8F221 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:53:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4CB7FAF5 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:53:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 898ACD8F220; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89213D8F21F for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:53:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from nm2-vm4.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm2-vm4.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4596B7FAF4 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:53:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1498146618; bh=O6P2G/aELLNt/+Uz2RuRh0DvEoAIqajHV1beqXaBMcA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=2kd7O3YAcsgx6bWUhsll+wawDlqh741cf5Xkuxz4acG1rGRKz0NoD6/ITNGwh0akgYuy17H1aydOCTj0gblm5/k9bG8weQgbAdfHUG3EoI4TDYGFnYinqXSY++tirU9vRXyAVrLVEgEkYNets0OrcQHBAi5wads5buhLYubLWHA= Received: from [66.196.81.164] by nm2.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2017 15:50:18 -0000 Received: from [98.139.244.51] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2017 15:50:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp113.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2017 15:50:18 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 262593.29233.bm@smtp113.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: h30fGsUVM1nxFV.OzZuc6gAVmdRlndjca6AEYCDQFtJg9iW OQ0GyXhWBAFev3FaYRnnxece2B9A.qmHI6j27b9dk3VMRF3g7ygnVjkYGVJn chNoxmO.8e78GoAJB8p3uaHJ7XcZ_i4.VwuffMyqQgZIRNJVEPu1CHZot2Ob utgCO.N8EdoGToIn_JIr8gZaPvBQDRRui5B2BsZryPrfBtbr8jpfJ72jxfPI evfoWgKfecwO6TrnlljAMRXCReul5qPMN9eEUIF3ADbVnSAi2eEnasoi97mz vKpEIunYTLPcW93YIX2cG29qS_ATufw3SzRO5ougrNUNbzA4s7plW73ea5bK Ya3BoCUyEgBCj1GQQVCCMtOITj2hhZtlZ2BYIwBIQwHIWZtG0i.NLIWhONBc Z.Z8_AsHO2oeZQFcyplMOtktgHV4CBLjvPzpfuUqp8rfMyXDE3AooJpjxvhT vZw1iIunDt0do1TTH8d_b7jQC9ixszFsehdo2dGG2F.EKcxREMU7gpshd1gP XMNXTNhcbJnUYigpM59JGdkKg.ElgB3gC6hBS4Zd7fVBthLcYmw5wvUPPSg. K_QvurhvSidZp7hb.rZkG X-Yahoo-SMTP: pPvqnOaswBBbYZLVYFzvU7GaowLcbNioPp.aF8KvOjZk From: To: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:50:30 -0400 Message-ID: <1tlnkc1l8md98dl3teqoab8ds3jutmvavc@4ax.com> References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <775ba90e-a811-4cc8-a729-bdc0dad7774c@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <775ba90e-a811-4cc8-a729-bdc0dad7774c@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:53:45 -0000 [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65535@att.net wrote: >> Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing? > >Two things: > > 1) It's progress in the development of the FreeBSD base system that >drives the release cycle. The general state of the ports does not exert >much influence on release frequency -- nor should it. Still not getting it, I'm afraid. How often does the base system undergo such drastic architecture changes that existing ports won't run under it? I haven't really been monitoring the situation, but I'd guess it's very seldom if only because such an architectural change is a cursėd big job that can hardly ever be justfied. I'd guess that most adults for whom systems are tools not toys are not too dissimilar to me: I want to *use* my tools, not spend time replacing them every quarter or even every year. As long as they do the job and don't compromise the system, they're fine by me. I have apps running under Win7 that were written for W2K (and in one case NT, iirc), and they're just as useful today as they were then. They do the job: why in the name of sanity should I replace them? So where's the point in everyone going mad trying to keep up a quarterly release schedule that serves more as an annoyance than benefit to your customer base? (Do you read the Asterix comics? The one where Asterix and Obelix go to Switzerland is particularly apropos here, I think: the owner of the inn awakens the guests every hour so that they can turn over the hourglass mounted over their bed. What benefit do the guests derive from that? None, of course, but it helps the owner feel in control of things. But the guests are, reasonably, quite upset by the loss of sleep due to his obsessiveness.) > > 2) Even if we could scrape up enough people to support however many >branches you are proposing, remember they are all volunteers. It's hard >enough getting people to maintain the existing quarterly branches as it >is, and those are relatively short lived so that most merges from head >are pretty trivial. People really aren't going to want to do >essentially repetitive merges to branches where everything else is up to >X years older than head. Which would make it both tedious and >frequently difficult to do. Again I'm really not following your logic. There are 2 versions of the base system now in play: 10.3 and 11.0. There are 2 more being developed: 10.4 and 11.1. 10.2 has already been trashed, thus forcing us to upgrade to 10.3 whether we wanted to or not, which in many cases, mine among them, was a "not". I'm sure the same thing will happen with 10.4 and 11.1 and plenty folk will be just as annoyed as we were with 10.2 Let's say you guys don't try to follow that schedule. You do a ports release for (let's say) 10.0 and then 11.0, but not for the other point releases in between. So if someone feels the deep need for 10.1, or 10.2, or 10.3 (or 11.n mutatis mutandis), they'll run 10.0 (or 11.0) ports under it. It's done all the time in industry. If you treat each ports release as a DVD --immutable once shipped--, or as a PROM, where changes can be made but it's a pain in the dupa so you only do it for the emergency case, it seems to me that the pressure has gone down by a factor of 3 or so. So where's the problem in that? 's mise le meas