On 06/03/2012 06:14 AM, Adam Strohl wrote:
On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote:
What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very
simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is
this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD?
I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port
tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is
that it is not possible.
I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that
older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a
security fix if there is no running port for the fix?
I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back to
an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security issues!
And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that
is the solution.
I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying
"need" for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective).
_______________________________________________
freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Technical debt perhaps counts when upstream vendor "new versions" breaks
things unexpectingly ?
just sayin
E
--
Etienne Robillard
Occupation: Software Developer
Company: Green Tea Hackers Club
Email: e...@gthcfoundation.org
Website: gthcfoundation.org
Skype ID: incidah
_______________________________________________
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"
