Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:34:20 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <erich@apsara.com.sg> To: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports completely and permanently hosed Message-ID: <200908070934.22472.erich@apsara.com.sg> In-Reply-To: <d873d5be0908061744p5ad99a79o853f46e1a6c7ea33@mail.gmail.com> References: <d873d5be0908061744p5ad99a79o853f46e1a6c7ea33@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On 07 August 2009 am 08:44:44 b. f. wrote: > Erich Dollansky wrote: > >I think that you hit the weakest point of FreeBSD. When a > > version number of a base port changes, hundreds or even > > thousands of ports have to be recompiled. It is basically the > > same effect as when the major version number of FreeBSD > > changes. > > The same is true of almost any build-from-source distribution > that uses shared libraries, not just FreeBSD. > of course, this is plain logic. > >If this would be synchronised with the main FreeBSD releases, > > it would have a minor effect on users. > > But please don't attempt to slow needed development by making > *(&@Q%#%@!!!! suggestions like this. If you need a seat-belt, > put it on -- but don't wrap it around everyone's neck. > So, why is there a ports freeze just before a new release? Isn't it done just out of the same reason? They want to have a stable ports tree on the day of the release. As I said, my seatbelt is the freeze whenever a basic library gets changed. Erich > b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200908070934.22472.erich>