From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 18:19:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F1E16A4CE for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:19:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-63-207-60-234.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [63.207.60.234]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A0843F3F for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:19:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F30F266B28; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:19:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:19:29 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Oliver Eikemeier Message-ID: <20031111021929.GA17050@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110152000.622db381.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <1068471598.38101.77.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110163623.GC93583@procyon.firepipe.net> <1068495958.690.72.camel@leguin> <53EC784E-13C5-11D8-AD24-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: Charles Swiger cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:35 -0000 --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:16:51PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > The first can be satisfied with something like pkgsrc-wip, and I always > wondered why we don't have a ports-FRESH and ports-TESTED, like we have > -CURRENT and -STABLE. Because even with a single, unbranched ports collection, committers can't keep it in working order without significant ongoing effort. On average, several ports become broken on one of the supported architectures and versions, *each day*. That's not counting the periodic "cataclysmic events" where hundreds of ports become broken due to e.g. a change in -current, and not counting errors introduced in the course of development work on the ports collection architecture. If you start adding more branches to the ports collection, you're going to multiply the possible failure modes, and the net result will be that the number of errors accumulating in the ports collection will more than multiply. Kris --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/sEcxWry0BWjoQKURAnkWAJwPNKLlsYtRi9BCbDHDvCTBt64dWACgk7ep xn3Crcz4ZWEac/QfZnQZNrs= =ycP8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--