Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:36:08 +0000 From: Paul "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Richards=FC?=" <paul@freebsd-services.co.uk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Paul@originative.co.uk, "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Richards=FC?="@originative.co.uk, <paul@freebsd-services.co.uk>, @meow.osd.bsdi.com, jkh@FreeBSD.org, j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, arch@FreeBSD.org, Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo@eircom.net>, Jim Mock <mij@osdn.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Subject: Re: More BETA evilness Re: BETA induced nervousness Message-ID: <3AB2BF88.A2AF290F@freebsd-services.co.uk> References: <XFMail.010316172955.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > > On 17-Mar-01 Paul "Richardsü wrote: > > Will Andrews wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:12:20AM +0000, Paul Richardsü wrote: > >> > It doesn't seem like setting the OS version to beta gains us anything, > >> > we might as well do > >> > >> Wrong. You obviously never tried building ports before only to discover > >> that they break in strange ways because of stupid version checking configure > >> scripts or otherwise. This was a real problem in the olden days. We > >> still need to do this to catch other mistakes. > >> > >> IMO we still need something, but it need not be called BETA, it can be > >> called PRERELEASE (which is what Kris suggested). > > > > Or ports fixing happens after the -release tag is laid. > > Umm, Paul, we usually release ports with the release you know. Like, at the > same time. > > > That seems more logical to me, finalise the OS then check all the ports > > work. > > This is called a release candidate and a release cycle. We do this work > _before_ the release goes out, not after. Well yes I know that, but when the release goes out the door and when the -release tag is laid aren't the same thing. The ports tree doesn't get branched so we can branch the src, then check the ports, then roll the release. The only change is that there's a delay between tagging the src tree and the release actually being rolled while the ports are checked over. > > It would also be the case that if ports were more portable across > > FreeBSD versions this would be less of any issue. > > No silly. This isn't bsd.port.mk junk this is stupid configure scripts that > have hard-coded checks on the output of uname. Ok, I understand. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AB2BF88.A2AF290F>