[LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > And why is it that you always need to run the very latest version? Just > pick the last package that was available. It's normally new enough.
Where have I said I need _lastest_ version of everything? You got it totally wrong. I do not need lastest version of packages, I just want packages were consistant and working, that's all. > > 2. Port tree is unstable > > > > IMO, port tree is not very stable. I mean: we're all human and more or > > less often make mistakes and inaccurate commits. So you cannot be sure > > that if you cvsup/portsnap your tree, it will not break something > > (e.g. because of some typo). It's OK to have such errors in general, and > > we can do nothing with it, but there are a lot of silly errors which > > could be avoided and you definitely don't deal with on a stable system. > > There's always something that can go wrong, especially if you deal with > messy ports that require a compatibility layer. But native builds cause > problems very rarely. > > > II Solutions > > > > Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I > > propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it, > > so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all > > patches to HEAD first. Then they wait for two things: > > - For next run on pointyhat to find out if package builds well > > (for a start, we could wait only for 6.x/i386 builds) > > - User feedback. Like, if there's no complains like "ahh, it > > broke everyhting, ahaha, please backout!", so everything's ok > > What about security critical changes? Would you push them through that > process as well? Read the portupgrade man page and look for the '-b' > flag. Security changes could be backported faster (but they should be reviewed and tested better). > If you want a branched system, why not use PKGSRC? Because I want to use freebsd ports, not pkgsrc. I'm familiar with it and I work with it for several years. > > ... > > > > Comments are welcome! > > It is normally not necessary to have the very latest version of everything. > With your approach you wouldn't really receive binaries earlier. Only > people who are willing to build ports themselves receive the ports later. It looks like you see only what you want to see, but not that I actually wrote. I propose creating STABLE branch because I prefer to have more stable and better tested software than new, but not enough stable software.
pgpwvWYaUqbw7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
