Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:48:34 -0800 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze Message-ID: <200712010948.34363.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <20071201164841.GA34390@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <200712010749.01173.david@vizion2000.net> <20071201164841.GA34390@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 01 December 2007 08:48:41 Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 07:49:00AM -0800, David Southwell wrote: > > On Saturday 01 December 2007 05:58:21 Thierry Thomas wrote: > > > On Sat 1 dec 07 at 14:25:08 +0100, Erik Trulsson > > > <ertr1013@student.uu.se> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > The ports freeze is intended to make sure the ports tree is in a > > > > stable and well tested state for the release. Updating major ports > > > > always carry a great risk of breaking things thus defeating the point > > > > of the freeze. > > > > > > Anyway, if the freeze is too long, and if the new version is released > > > several weeks after the thaw, very few will install these packages: > > > a lot of updates will be committed, and many users will update their > > > ports tree to install the new versions. This is very difficult to find > > > a good compromise! > > > > I do not think we need a compromise we need a different system. We need > > one that preserves continuity of support for existing systems while the > > new releases are testedin a way that does not adversely impact them. The > > priority needs to be the current user base not a desire to rush a new > > release out the door at all costs. > > Considering that FreeBSD releases almost always get delayed by several > weeks compared to the original schedule I think it is safe to say that "a > desire to rush a new release out the door at all costs" is something that > the FreeBSD project certainly does not suffer from. I believe this to be head in the sand logic.IMHO It is rushing it out the door at all costs if the cost is a port freeze!!! A port freeze is the most user unfriendly act that one could think of! > > Now it may be that due to the ports freeze, there will be some ports whose > upgrade will be delayed for a couple of weeks (not to be confused with > those ports whose upgrade gets delayed for other reasons.) > I do not consider this to be a major problem. > > I think you vastly overestimate the need for the ports tree to always have > the latest versions of all softwares contained therein. The ports system and new release development systems need to move seemlessly not interfere with one another. This means a rethink of the fundamental assumptions that drive current policies and practice. > > In those very rare cases where a user just cannot wait 2-3 weeks extra for > an upgrade, they can always try to build the software themselves outside > the ports system. I regard this view as developer centric rather than user centric. As I have said elsewhere the ports system is freebsd msp and users are not naturally comnfortable with building outside the ports system. If they were we would not need the system!!! I
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200712010948.34363.david>