Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 04:28:06 -0700 (PDT) From: David Holloway <daveh@tamis.com> To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970803041611.16172A-100000@sage> In-Reply-To: <19970803122321.15396@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
maybe I am just being ignorant, but.... just how difficult can this be??? how different do ports-current and ports-stable have to be? (unless 2.x and 3.x are completely non portable between each other, in which case.. that is a mistake) the existence of ports-stable could be considered a walnut-creek-cdrom issue. -------------------------- personally, I think perl sucks, it leads to poor code. but it is deeply accepted that perl4 should be found on all systems, (No we dont have to follow linux junkies and make perl5 default. while doing some porting, I discovered that linux(redhat) has ppmtoxpm and bmptoppm in /usr/bin ?? what is up with that? my point? tcl and perl5 dont belong in the base.) On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Andreas Klemm wrote: > On Sat, Aug 02, 1997 at 11:36:41PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > > This argument is not really centered on being bloatist, at least not > > totally. I would fight taking perl out of the kernel (I want perl5.004 > > brought in) but I'll be pleased to see tcl make an exit. Might a > > compromise be made, let tcl go away, in exchange for updating perl? > > The whole thing started with Satoshi´s citicism about the > -current "circus". > > This came up because of great differences between -current > and -stable, which makes it nearly impossible, to support > a 1028 ports monster. > > So he wanted only to support -stable in the future. But I think > this is a step behind. > Ports have to be buildable on -current and -stable, because : > a) -current is the next upcoming -stable release > b) people like me, who have only one machine, usually > run the bleeding edge, > c) people who have interest in trying SMP are boud to > current > > Figure out, if ports are only made for stable ... If -current > does more and more incompatible changes to -stable ... Who > should done the fine work of porting perhaps 1250 ports > to -current, which will become 3.0-RELEASE and 3.0-STABLE after > that ??? > > I think the only question is ... what has to be done now, > that ports are buildable under -current _AND_ -stable fine > without too much problems. > > So to say .... > > This is not a decision of dropping a pet toy, it is > a decision of a release engineer, who is responsible > for the direction of the OS and that a ports collection > doesn´t get out of sync with everything other than 2.2-STABLE. > > Andreas /// > > -- > Andreas Klemm | klemm.gtn.com - powered by > Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD > http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html > http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/benches.html >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970803041611.16172A-100000>