Re: Porting for -stable from -current
2023-11-17T15:12:22Z, "Omar Polo" :
> On 2023/11/17 13:50:16 +, "Johannes Thyssen Tishman"
> 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.)
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I run -current on my desktop computer
where I do most of my porting and it's on my server that's running
-stable that I want to install a port.
> > 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.
That's what I thought. I will deploy a vm with -stable and build
it there.
> > 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 :)
Even though I've never had problems with -current, I'd prefer to
stick to -stable on my server as it is also where I run other
services I rely on. But you are right, the wait is not long.
> > 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.
Thanks Omar.
> Cheers,
>
> Omar Polo
PS. Your email landed on my spam folder and my email server only
checks for rdns and fcrdns (no {r}spamd or spamassasin}). Could it
be that they not properly configured?
Re: Porting for -stable from -current
On 2023/11/17 13:50:16 +, "Johannes Thyssen Tishman" 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
Porting for -stable from -current
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. Does anyone know about an alternative/workaround to this? 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). Also while here, are any new ports ever backported to stable? What is the policy regarding this? Kind regards, Johannes
