Hi, On 07 August 2009 am 10:14:25 b. f. wrote: > On 8/7/09, Erich Dollansky <er...@apsara.com.sg> wrote: > > On 07 August 2009 am 08:44:44 b. f. wrote: > >> Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >> >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. > > Yes, and for building a stable subset of packages beforehand to > ship with the release. But these freezes are considered to be > a necessary evil, to be removed as soon as possible, and not > something that should be in place from release to release. The > current version of the Ports tree is supposed to be the leading > edge of (downstream) development. > You misunderstand me. I do not want a freeze of the ports tree, I only recommend, to either delay an update of a base port to the next freeze or put a short freeze around during which only ports are updated which got screwed by the change. If I want a freeze to 'my' ports tree, I keep the one from the last release. Erich _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"