Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:59:49 +0200
From:      "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD?
Message-ID:  <4FCFB6B5.9080905@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-cqT=ZgL28%2BYw=%2BCnRoxSBgqM%2BkLODJqMppLFhtjZv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAGFTUwM1a%2B4CkOcVxjo_G3k4ae6Pa=KwC3mTvRi5P=Urc7kXew@mail.gmail.com> <4FCEFCBE.4050401@digsys.bg> <BAY165-ds88A5C1753E8C22158814DCA0D0@phx.gbl> <3668749.rHy9RI2eRn@x220.ovitrap.com> <CADLo83-cqT=ZgL28%2BYw=%2BCnRoxSBgqM%2BkLODJqMppLFhtjZv_Q@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig78469E5B2F0E9307D9EEF11D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 06/06/12 16:15, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 6 June 2012 14:48, Erich Dollansky <erich@alogreentechnologies.com> =
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06 June 2012 9:21:22 Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
>>>
>>> Overall I see it as packages are flat stable at the cost of being out=
 of
>>> date, and ports are current but not guaranteed to compile without
>>> intervention. The Maintainers do give a very good shot to make them s=
table
>>> but sometimes one person cannot maintain millions of lines of code an=
d not
>>> make a glitch occasionally, or make it out on time when a dependency
>>> changes.
>>
>> isn't the date of the packages the date of the last release of the bra=
nch? Aren't the chances high then to get a working ports tree?
>>
>> You can follow the discussion about this subject for at least 10 years=
 back. The result is always the same.
>>
>> In parallel is the discussion why so little people are using FreeBSD.
>>
>> Do you understand what I want to say?
>=20
> I do understand it, but you don't seem to understand that we *do*
> understand what you're saying.
>=20
> - Tagged ports trees contain out of date software.

This is the implicite nature of a tag and - I presume - intended.

>=20
> - Security fixes cannot be backported to tagged trees- we *do* *not*
> *have* *resources* for this.

The "user" has the choice: either stay with an outdated port's tree OR
with a uptodate port's tree, but the risk of non working ports.

>=20
> - Occasionally you may see minor issues when following the latest
> branch of ports.  This is the price you pay for being up to date, with
> the very latest of software.

Those "minor" issues are, having the recent mess in front of my eyes, a
simple "negative exaggeration". What is that "price worth", if the
system is faulting and rendered useless or partially useless?


>=20
> Chris


--------------enig78469E5B2F0E9307D9EEF11D
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPz7a9AAoJEOgBcD7A/5N87voH/Ry+PqeHsFOkC73QCQlA1anM
kMHdHmnDqWKg5DnVgJcJm5f9eNzldKFThdKQxl3daPVWJeh0bHE1r7zpms75SY85
+gEgdgl80p5RQZnwHxiIv5DCAeYpG/f5+QxleCQvX1CqT+Bf1G9Qn8m4ygV2KNrz
Jpg7YtUPqEGMvarvTUJEAKUEoBoz8EXct93CiHKzsmZXFIPB4TR5RECKjZDOb350
zoJRv2ZtdHWgxQshH1qz014/jiTqC6SgwNUzk4uJDR+9HkGOrxViACaX7EGbLn5f
J+Ih34i6P9i/7z2WjLEwzcf/enQi+W6/esxUGarPwxGl9QTBv6QmtYkPYi+jkk4=
=HEVP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig78469E5B2F0E9307D9EEF11D--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FCFB6B5.9080905>