On 2023/11/17 13:50:16 +0000, "Johannes Thyssen Tishman" <li...@thyssentishman.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on a port that I want to run on one of my servers and > it just hit me that it will most probably not work since I run > -stable on it (the dependencies versions don't match). I thought > about re-making the port for stable by fetching a -stable ports > tree on the server directly, but the available storage space is > tight.
This makes me think that you're using a -current tree on -stable which is not supported. Often, changes are done in base and then soon after used in the ports infrastructure (in the previous release cycle there was the make' special variable .VARIABLES addition for instance.) > Does anyone know about an alternative/workaround to this? Make the port on -current, then attempt to build in on -stable if you have to. It's still something not supported, but chances are that it should work as-is. It depends on the port and on its dependencies of course. > I'm thinking about launching a vm running -stable and just do it > from there, but I thought it'd be intersting to hear about other > strategies (if any). Either this or just use a different machine, I don't think there are many other ways around it. Or just run -current for the next ~4 months until the next release and then switch back to -stable :) > Also while here, are any new ports ever backported to stable? What > is the policy regarding this? I don't think new ports are backported to stable. The policy is to backport only security fixes. Releases are made every six months, so it's not that much to wait for new/updated ports to show up for those who sticks to -stable. Cheers, Omar Polo
