Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Hallo Julian H. Stacey, > But if one stands on a broken system & needs to recover, some simple > stock cc & sh tool/procedure with no dependencies is attractive, even if > one has to coble something ones self. I agree. maybe you like to try: $ less /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg_jail/files/README

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:16:01 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:53:36PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: >> Since that's what I integrate for my dev use, I'd be happy to >> take a zero'th-order cut at defining it, if nobody else wants to. > >Fine. See

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 27.06.2017 15:24, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:33:50 +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: we could start small with a just a handful of ports in a stable LTS (Long Term Support) branch. Develop processes around maintaining them, get some feedback

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 26.06.2017 21:33, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 26/06/2017 07:24, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Aloha David, I think the current process of having rolling-releases packages makes unpredictable upgrades as we have to manually check if the upgrade will be fine or not. When a user installs FreeBSD

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

from Mark Linimon: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:01:39PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > raising the possibility of building for other targets. > Which is very much not hardly even the same as "they are being resistant > to change". In fact, about as far away from it as is possible to get. >

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 27/06/2017 17:45, Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large. Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that subset is. I think this part is fairly easy. We can

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:53:36PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > Since that's what I integrate for my dev use, I'd be happy to > take a zero'th-order cut at defining it, if nobody else wants to. Fine. See http://www.lonesome.com/FreeBSD/poudriere/subsets/ for what I use. I'm not

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:01:39PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > raising the possibility of building for other targets. Which is very much not hardly even the same as "they are being resistant to change". In fact, about as far away from it as is possible to get. "techinically possible" !=

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

from Mark Linimon: > Remember that NetBSD runs on dozens of targets*, of which only two support > Ada AFAIK. > mcl > * http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-7.1/ I follow http://releng.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/builds.cgi which shows 72 targets for HEAD, 67 targets for netbsd-7 and netbsd-8, 60

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 12:45:34 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: >> The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large. > >Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:37:22AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote: > It seems NetBSD pkgsrc people are not catching on, preferring to stay > with the clumsy pkgsrc tools: creatures of habit, reluctant to change. Remember that NetBSD runs on dozens of targets*, of which only two support Ada AFAIK.

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large. Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that subset is. If there is interest, I can provide the examples and code I use whenever I start up a

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:33:50 +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: >we could >start small with a just a handful of ports in a stable LTS (Long Term >Support) branch. Develop processes around maintaining them, get some >feedback about the effort of applying only security

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

"Thomas Mueller" wrote: > from Dewayne Geraghty: > > > Synth is very good. It builds upon pkg and is way less complicated that > > poudriere. I dont know the relative dependencies counts for both synth & poudriere, but I suspect synth is bigger ? ( I have a messed up current here where loads

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

from Dewayne Geraghty: > Synth is very good. It builds upon pkg and is way less complicated that > poudriere. > Unfortunately John Marino was unceremoniously removed from committing to > FreeBSD, and its is uncertain whether he'll continue to support synth on > FreeBSD. (He supports

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/26/2017 00:27, Guido Falsi wrote: I only partly agree with what you say, but anyway insisting on the mailing lists with individual committers, and defending a general idea ignoring all the details, dismissing the actual problems in the detailed implementation that are raised by committers

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Aloha David, I think the current process of having rolling-releases packages makes unpredictable upgrades as we have to manually check if the upgrade will be fine or not. When a user installs FreeBSD 11.0 on its system, it probably expects that everything will work fine until a next major

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

> On 26. Jun 2017, at 9:43 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> Thus, in some cases, people demand or insist because they want something >> they either cannot accomplish themselves, or cannot accomplish in the >> limited time they have. As far as I have observed, you can't even -pay-

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Hi! > Thus, in some cases, people demand or insist because they want something > they either cannot accomplish themselves, or cannot accomplish in the > limited time they have. As far as I have observed, you can't even -pay- > the ports experts to do something you might want. You can discuss

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/26/17 09:27, Guido Falsi wrote: > I'd say the difficult part in such a problem is not in the idea but in > the boring details of it's implementation and long term maintenance. > I forgot one important piece of information: Any project that requires full dedication from all committers to a

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/26/17 00:32, Dave Hayes wrote: > On 06/23/2017 01:53, Guido Falsi wrote: >> If your model works fine I'm quite sure the FreeBSD community and >> project will be quite happy to embrace it. > ... >> I cannot think of a better way to show there actually is no manpower > problem than creating a

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/2017 01:53, Guido Falsi wrote: If your model works fine I'm quite sure the FreeBSD community and project will be quite happy to embrace it. ... > I cannot think of a better way to show there actually is no manpower problem than creating a working example of such a workflow maintained

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Are there any advantages of using pkg instead of pkgsrc on FreeBSD? Instead of having branches by OS version, would having ports LTS branches independent of the base system be a better solution? Grzegorz It looks like you might have misunderstood something I said about pkgsrc. I use pkg with

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Martin Waschbüsch wrote: Am 23.06.2017 um 23:53 schrieb Michelle Sullivan : Matt Smith wrote: I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest stable versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13, libressl 2.5 etc. It's usually

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

> > I personally can't see the rationale of many OS version branches of ports: > > far too much work. > > I had the thought of something like that for (NetBSD) pkgsrc: a very tall > > order, considering that pkgsrc has been ported to many OSes besides NetBSD. > > Imagine a separate branch of

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would additionally need to apply selected patches to those OS version branches? "OS version

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

from Vlad K: > On 2017-06-23 23:09, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest > > quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would > > mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would > > additionally need to

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

> Am 23.06.2017 um 23:53 schrieb Michelle Sullivan : > > Matt Smith wrote: >> >> I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest stable >> versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13, libressl 2.5 >> etc. It's usually impossible to do

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Matt Smith wrote: I use FreeBSD *precisely* because it mostly keeps up with the latest stable versions of things. I have postfix 3.2, pgsql 9.6, nginx 1.13, libressl 2.5 etc. It's usually impossible to do this with linux unless you install things directly from source. And me I came to

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 2017-06-23 23:09, Grzegorz Junka wrote: Fine. Considering that maintainers already apply patches to the latest quarterly branch. If there were to be OS version branches, it would mean that maintainers apart from what they are doing now would additionally need to apply selected patches to

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Julian Elischer wrote: (*) From my experience, the best way to cope with openssl is to have everything link with the system openssl and issue security upgrades to the base OS that upgrades that when there is a need. (this may change, but it's been my experience so far). Agree on previous

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Can't you just create the branch yourself? It's open source. You just clone it and can keep it in Github for free. Then you can apply security patches to just the applications you need yourself. If it's too difficult you can hire people to apply just specific patches. With Github pull

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/06/2017 12:32, Baho Utot wrote: On 06/23/17 07:48, RW via freebsd-ports wrote: On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400 Baho Utot wrote: The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it to function

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/6/17 11:47 pm, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 23/06/2017 03:58, Julian Elischer wrote: On 23/6/17 6:36 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote: scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/6/17 4:38 pm, Vlad K. wrote: On 2017-06-23 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Release branches won't have many maintenance except individual bug fixes when security advisories are found. No backport, no updates. Nothing prevents the maintainers from doing exactly that right now.

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/06/2017 03:58, Julian Elischer wrote: On 23/6/17 6:36 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote: scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/17 10:30, Guido Falsi wrote: On 06/23/17 15:11, Baho Utot wrote: On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote: On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if somehow

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/17 10:53, Guido Falsi wrote: > On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: >>> Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if >>> somehow >>> you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/17 15:11, Baho Utot wrote: > > > On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote: >> On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if somehow you could select the

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:09:26AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > I'll go back to what I was doing before This was an unkind comment and I should not have made it. My apologies to all. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/17 04:53, Guido Falsi wrote: On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if somehow you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via some (as yet

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Jun 23 08:02, scratch65...@att.net wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/17 07:48, RW via freebsd-ports wrote: On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:03:35 -0400 Baho Utot wrote: The pre-compiled packages is what drove me to build the entire system as it gave me a broken system that would not work and upon getting it to function would/**/spontaneous reboot. My hand

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:36:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: >scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: >> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 2017-06-23 11:35, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Release branches do not need backports. I think we have different concepts of "backport" here. I'm not talking about backports as defined by debian backports repository. I'm talking about taking a piece of code from NEWER version and

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

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

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/17 09:47, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: >>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing >>> the frequency of port releases is

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if somehow you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via some (as yet unspecified) mechanism? I've also

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > > My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing > > the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be > > a Really Good Thing for

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 2017-06-23 10:26, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Release branches won't have many maintenance except individual bug fixes when security advisories are found. No backport, no updates. Nothing prevents the maintainers from doing exactly that right now. But you see, there are two kinds of

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 00:31 +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > A user would probably start with precompiled packages. Only power > users > who know what they are doing would try to compile the packages > themselves, and at that point I would expect them to know a thing or > two > about verifying

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: > Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if > somehow > you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via > some > (as yet unspecified) mechanism? I've also think about that but I'm not sure if it's

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

You didn't read (or ignored) the last half of my post. Whatever. I'll go back to what I was doing before, e.g., cleaning up other people's messes. Your first two guesses of "what type of commit bits made the messes" don't count. mcl ___

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:36:26PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > The problem is that such a set of sponsored branches does not exist so > knowing who'd sign up and who would't is just guesswork And that's why neither myself or the other people who have in the past considered such a business

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/6/17 1:23 pm, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! There's a blog post from one of the folks that explains the idea behind that 'fast update' mode of operations, and yes, he's doing real work. http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/1776-rolling-out-patches-and-changes-often-and-fast/ That is ONE kind

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Hi! > > There's a blog post from one of the folks that explains the > > idea behind that 'fast update' mode of operations, and yes, > > he's doing real work. > > http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/1776-rolling-out-patches-and-changes-often-and-fast/ > That is ONE kind of installation. Well,

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/6/17 12:39 pm, Mark Linimon wrote: On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:58:14AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: What we want is: A "recent" starting point for our next project/upgrade to start from and an ongoing version of that, which will get critical fixes only for at LEAST 2 years, probably 5.

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:58:14AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > What we want is: > A "recent" starting point for our next project/upgrade to start from > and an ongoing version of that, which will get critical fixes only for > at LEAST 2 years, probably 5. > The key here is the *_*critical

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/6/17 7:28 am, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 22/06/2017 15:50, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote: Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/6/17 2:57 am, Dave Hayes wrote: On 06/22/2017 11:43, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Let me use my example of www/node back. I have built the port www/node in poudriere using this origin (so no version). At the time I've built it it was a 6.x version. When I upgraded my machine, www/node

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 23/6/17 10:39 am, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits is a social-status enhancer. **Nobody** with real work to do ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken.

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Hi! > Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes > of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits > is a social-status enhancer. **Nobody** with real work to do > ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken. There's a blog post from one of

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 6/22/2017 8:31 PM, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 22/06/2017 23:16, Baho Utot wrote: On 6/22/2017 6:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 22/06/2017 23:16, Baho Utot wrote: On 6/22/2017 6:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote:

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 22/06/2017 15:50, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote: Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing? Two things: 1) It's progress in the

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 6/22/2017 6:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: My problem is that my industry

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

scratch65...@att.net wrote on 2017/06/23 00:15: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing the frequency of port

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: >> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing >> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing > the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be > a Really Good Thing for everyone. I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/22/2017 11:43, demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Let me use my example of www/node back. I have built the port www/node in poudriere using this origin (so no version). At the time I've built it it was a 6.x version. When I upgraded my machine, www/node has switched to 7.x version and since

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 10:43 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: > They are not useless to me. > > I maintain a fair number of different package repositories for > various > purposes. Over a long period of time I've found that trying to build > from HEAD is a random crapshoot as to whether everything you

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/22/2017 09:16, scratch65...@att.net wrote: I can't help feeling that there's something very wrong when people for whom the system is a tool rather than a plaything have to work around the choices made by the "official" developers. I'd say this is true no matter what OS you use these

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 06/22/2017 08:53, Julian Elischer wrote: Yeah but the quarterly branches are relatively useless because they a not sync'd to anything and mean nothing special to anyone. They are not useless to me. I maintain a fair number of different package repositories for various purposes. Over a

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:16:44 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >The model with one branch per release will bring it to way more with a >maintenance window way larger It would indeed! Factor of 3, I think. But I'm really not suggesting that, I'm suggesting that a

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:01:45 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >I've had this conversation with ports several times, But the requirements >of 'business' is not their interest. In fact i was told several times, >"Don't use our quarterly packages, make your own with

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 2017/06/22 20:56, Baho Utot wrote: > One could still use releng 11.0 ports with 10.3 OS could they not No, not in general. You've got it the wrong way round. You might get away with releng 10.3 ports and 11.0 OS for a while but it will likely cause you grief when you do run afoul of a

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:30:10 +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: >I regularly seeing admins setting up different Ubuntu versions, because >at one you have PHP 7 and on the other MySQL 5.7, but not both at the >same Ubuntu version. Which is one of the nice things

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 22/6/17 11:50 pm, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote: Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing? Two things: 1) It's progress in the

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 22.06.2017 21:56, Baho Utot wrote: On 6/22/2017 11:30 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote: On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: As usual with such

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 6/22/2017 11:30 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote: On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 22/6/17 10:16 pm, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:03:33AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number of

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:53 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote: >> Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing? > >Two things: > > 1) It's progress in the development of the FreeBSD base system that >drives

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote: On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number of branches required (the

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 2017/06/22 15:03, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing? Two things: 1) It's progress in the development of the FreeBSD base system that drives the release cycle. The general state of the ports does not exert much influence on release

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

2017-06-22 16:16 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Daroussin : > The model with one branch per release will bring it to way more with a > maintenance window way larger (actually it is 3 month making the quarterly > relatively easy to maintain) So after three months if you don't switch branch,

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:03:33AM -0400, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin > wrote: > > >As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the > >number > >of branches required (the quarterly

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the >number >of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it >is >only one branch). Please help me out

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

2017-06-22 14:18 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Daroussin : > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:15:02PM +0200, David Demelier wrote: > As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the > number > of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On 2017-06-22 14:15, David Demelier wrote: While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree before installing a new service and I faced some troubles: What works best for us, to keep a stable production, is to track the HEAD with svn. That way we can pre-empt changes

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:18:56PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:15:02PM +0200, David Demelier wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running > > FreeBSD 11.0 for a while. > > > > While I use quarterly ports

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

El 22 jun. 2017 14:15, "David Demelier" escribió: Hello, Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running FreeBSD 11.0 for a while. While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree before installing a new service and I faced

Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 02:15:02PM +0200, David Demelier wrote: > Hello, > > Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running > FreeBSD 11.0 for a while. > > While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree > before installing a new service and I faced

[RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version

Hello, Today I've upgraded one of my personal FreeBSD servers. It's running FreeBSD 11.0 for a while. While I use quarterly ports branches, I usually update my ports tree before installing a new service and I faced some troubles: www/node was updated from 6.x to 7.x: unfortunately my etherpad