Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:01:25 +0200 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <tz@FreeBSD.org> To: Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <dee46ef0-073d-beeb-32ae-de29d861ccc4@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <6f68460a-2fb6-2234-f7c1-0c15ba75a551@columbus.rr.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <8e69aff9-4288-fe1e-53df-83a0d74fbe82@columbus.rr.com> <e1096c3c-d661-7d70-0073-2439cee3c88e@FreeBSD.org> <6f68460a-2fb6-2234-f7c1-0c15ba75a551@columbus.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22.06.2017 21:56, Baho Utot wrote: > > > On 6/22/2017 11:30 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: >> On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote: >>> On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65535@att.net wrote: >>>> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin >>>> <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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). >>>> Please help me out here, Baptiste, because I'm apparently missing >>>> *something*. >>>> >>>> Out in industry, if you haven't enough people to do a new >>>> high-quality release every N months, and you can't get a >>>> headcount increase, then you cut the release schedule. Can't do >>>> 4 releases a year? Cut back to 2. Still too many? Cut back to >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> The alternatives to cutting the schedule are that (a) people >>>> begin burning out and quitting, (b) quality drops and your >>>> customer base begins abandoning you, or (c) both of the above. >>>> >>>> Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> >>> >>> I am looking at OpenBSD to replace FreeBSD. They have a more relaxed >>> update schedule and that fits with what I need. >> >> Go ahead with whatever fits your needs. >> >> But since the ports-tree is a subversion repository it is really easy >> to maintain the status you want. I do this for various customer and my >> various server. >> >>> I am looking for a system that is very stable and doesn't do the >>> upgrade path for the sake of it being newer. >> >> Which has various downsides. I remember for example various linux LTS >> distros, which only apply security fixes. I discovered various bugs >> which stay there for years, because they are not security issues - >> they just hurt you daily. :D > > No not really I ran LFS servers and desktops for 10 years This does not mean that you're hit by the bugs i am. The most recent example is a bug in curl parsing a #. This was introduced via a security fix in Ubuntu and make use of '#' in passwords for htaccess impossible, until you use new curl releases. Which are not available on Ubuntu 16 LTS for some more years. >>> Having a "releng ports" version that goes with a releng version of >>> the OS would be great by me. Linux from scratch does this and it >>> works very well. >> >> It really does not work well. In everyday situation this results in >> "heck we need a new server to get a new version of a needed software, >> because we need a new linux version". >> I regularly seeing admins setting up different Ubuntu versions, >> because at one you have PHP 7 and on the other MySQL 5.7, but not both >> at the same Ubuntu version. > > BSD != Linux so your comparison is invalid. No, that is the point of my comparison. Luckily BSD != Linux and also the various distributions schemes of updates having there up- and downsides. But in such discussions its often that only the own use-case is mentioned. And i want to widen the scope. Greetings, Torsten
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dee46ef0-073d-beeb-32ae-de29d861ccc4>