From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 23 21:09:14 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 9E891D89F6F for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:09:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A0D0744D7 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:09:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from ultrabook.yoonka.com ([10.70.6.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v5NL9B6p066055 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:09:11 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) X-Authentication-Warning: msa1.earth.yoonka.com: Host [10.70.6.2] claimed to be ultrabook.yoonka.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> <594C4663.5080209@quip.cz> <09384577-ed7e-d142-43f3-0a08f5d21056@freebsd.org> <5eabe1d2-85a3-f7eb-a1ab-dc5552eb70fe@gjunka.com> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <6d35f70b-17f2-d864-68ed-a3637cdc9fbf@gjunka.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:09:11 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB-large 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: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:09:14 -0000 >> Can't you just create the branch yourself? It's open source. You just >> clone it and can keep it in Github for free. Then you can apply >> security patches to just the applications you need yourself. If it's >> too difficult you can hire people to apply just specific patches. >> With Github pull requests it's deadly easy. I am sure that if you >> asked maintainers to do the patching for a financial incentive they >> would mind doing it. > I actually explained it.. We do not have the people who understand > all those ports. > if there is a port hat gets a fix, one assumes there is a maintainer > who at least understands that port a bit. > I would feel more comfortable if they made the fix. > Having said that I do think tat we do need to pony up some cash at > some stage.. and many others should too > if we want to have something like this. I've said this elsewhere. Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would additionally need to apply selected patches to those OS version branches? Considering there would be, say, 3 latest version branches, and that 30% of the patches that go to the latest branch would need to also be ported to the OS version branches, that would roughly mean twice as much work as today? Grzegorz