I'm sorry that I rubbed you the wrong way about this. I assure you that wasn't the intent. But I also want to point out that it is, to say the least, pretty weird that somehow all the focus is on the way I laid this enquiry out and not one bit on the elephant in the room. As if somehow it's not a glaring problem that Arm64 users who go with the official and general advice of using packages, not ports, must accept being provisioned with what may result in insecure systems. Would the discussion really have led elsewhere if I had used a more tiptoey and preemptively apologetic tone?
"My apologies for bothering by e-mailing, but is there a chance..." Is it really entitlement, though? I've had a look through the Ports- and Misc lists and it simply isn't the case that people were nagging about this as soon as some package was a week out of date. Or even a whole month out of date. But now it's been a year, since Arm64 users last saw up-to-date packages. Or to put it in a more flattering way, it's been half a year. For the second year in a row. If providing users with package updates truly is, by your very own admission and own words, a pain, and that you are on the verge of giving up on it, maybe you will at least consider asking others in the project for help. > From: Stuart Henderson <stu.lists () spacehopper ! org> > Date: 2025-09-23 14:06:25 > > "bloody full year of inaction" > "debacle" > "management" > > I'm -><- this far from stopping stable package builds full stop, > they are already a pain to run. If you want to have this sort of > sense of entitlement go run some vendor-run linux distro. >
