Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:58:52 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Igor Mozolevsky <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <20120120085852.GB32491@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1201171824170.1855@sea.ntplx.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <CAJ-VmomM46xGk3R6a9G_KDxMvF5ETiSQPwv5ARxwBo90t4=x=g@mail.gmail.com> <CADWvR2jYUMv1ZXxAdmOu=NHoK5XfdEC0mum7NMkfQFeGX6k5Yw@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1201171824170.1855@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:45:17PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > The problem I have with ports is that there is not a -stable branch > that tracks with -stable core. We've been working for 18 months to try to get the hardware infrastructure in place to be able to consider such approaches. > It doesn't even have to be every port, just the commonly used ports. That's easy in theory, but extremely difficult in practice. The infra- sturcture is far more heavyweight (because of demand for features) than most people give it credit for. There's no concept of "subset of ports tree". Go examine the hierarchy and it will become apparent why. Even a "server-only" concept doesn't get you as far as you might think. Again, "the general problem is hard". mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120120085852.GB32491>