From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Jun 24 11:19:08 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 3F49DD9C955 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:19:08 +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 D9FCF65E5A for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:19:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from crayon2.yoonka.com (crayon2.yoonka.com [10.70.7.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v5OBIx7q083179 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:18:59 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.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> <6d35f70b-17f2-d864-68ed-a3637cdc9fbf@gjunka.com> <63e5c4e30a60d51c5a068177b9483206@acheronmedia.hr> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <8948545b-5269-8a0e-3f92-9dfd02f227c1@gjunka.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:18:59 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 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: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:19:08 -0000 >>> 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? >> "OS version branches" would be a complete waste of time and resources, and it >> would remove some level of separation/independence between the base and ports. >> The crux of the problem here is so called "stable ports", not necessarily >> tying them to the life cycle of a base release. It doesn't make sense to tie >> version of a port to the base release. Especially with the new releng support >> schedule that would mean 5 years per major version which is quite a lot. > (snip) > > I personally can't see the rationale of many OS version branches of ports: far too much work. > > I had the thought of something like that for (NetBSD) pkgsrc: a very tall order, considering that pkgsrc has been ported to many OSes besides NetBSD. > > Imagine a separate branch of pkgsrc for every version and branch of NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. > > I only follow the current branch of FreeBSD ports and pkgsrc, though now I have also become interested in pkgsrc-synth. > > Tom > Are there any advantages of using pkg instead of pkgsrc on FreeBSD? Instead of having branches by OS version, would having ports LTS branches independent of the base system be a better solution? Grzegorz