Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:46:12 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk> To: Chris Piazza <cpiazza@home.net> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Nicolas Blais <nicblais@videotron.ca>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HELP!!! -CURRENT libtool problem. Message-ID: <19990712004612.A51439@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <19990712155440.B494@norn.ca.eu.org>; from Chris Piazza on Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 03:54:40PM -0700 References: <37810FDD.C1321FE7@videotron.ca> <37887C61.2F462FD@newsguy.com> <19990711220050.A31542@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> <19990712155440.B494@norn.ca.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 03:54:40PM -0700, Chris Piazza wrote: > Um..er... I hope you were really just being sarcastic. All ports > should work on -stable as well as -current. In fact, more build > on -stable than -current according to http://bento.freebsd.org/. > If any ports work on one but not the other it is a bug and should > be fixed. So I ask, what policy? I was under the impression that if you were CVSup'ing the ports tree then any changes to the ports subsystem (for example, new command line parameters to fetch(1)) would be utilised by the ports system *before* they had been merged in to -stable. The rationale being that if you were tracking the ports tree in that way then you should be tracking -current instead. There have certainly been periods where my -stable system has been unable to build new versions of ports where my the ports tree is perhaps a week newer than the built source tree on my machine. Checking the mail archives when this has happened has shown me the problem, and it's been relatively simple to either build the thing by hand, or do a local merge of the change from -current to my tree. I'm hand-waving here slightly, as it's been a few months since I last needed to do this, and specific cases are fuzzy in my memory at the moment, as it just became an automatic process ("Oh, this port doesn't build, what hasn't been merged in now? <tinker> <tinker> <tinker> Right, fixed.") that I didn't take particular note of the ports where it's been an issue. But my point is that if we're warning people away from -current (and I'm in complete agreement that this is a good idea) then we should also be aware that as well as not being able to run the latest and greatest FreeBSD code, we are occasionally giving them advice that means that (apparently) unrelated systems (the ports tree) don't build properly. It's not a big deal, but I see a lot of sweeping generalisations about things like this (more so on Usenet, obviously), whether it's things like "Run -stable for an easier life", or "FreeBSD is a better server than Linux", or "OpenBSD is the most secure of the *BSDs", and it always bugs me slightly. :-) N -- [intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed, non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs the links. -- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990712004612.A51439>