On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 10:38 +0200, Vlad K. wrote: > But again, that's all doable without having to introduce new > infrastructure. The ports tree as is can be maintained like this and > quarterly repos would NOT be required. All it's needed is for > maintainers to keep a stable version and a latest version. There's > already plenty of ports done like that, otoh postfix and > postfix-current, nginx and nginx-devel, etc...
Yes but again if not all ports follow this system, we still have the problem of having potential major upgrades. > Because the BIGGEST problem in maintaining separate "stable" or LTS > branches is BACKPORTING fixes for ports in the #2 category, ie. > those > that mix new features with fixes, so you have to CHERRY PICK only > the > fix and BACKPORT it to your "stable" branch. And that's even more > work > often introducing NEW bugs. Release branches do not need backports. > BTW, the problem of the original post could've been avoided if the > user > only read UPDATING which clearly stated that www/node becomes 7 and > previous node (6) becomes www/node6. (20161207) entry. Completely off topic, if you upgrade the ports tree, you should update all your packages as doing partial upgrades is even worse (shared library rebuilds for instance). _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
