12-stable ports for arm/arm64?

2018-11-05 Thread Ronald Klop
Hello, I now the release process of 12.0 is ongoing. But I'm wondering when the pkg building for arm and arm64 will start? Is that after the releng/12.0 branch next week? https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.0R/schedule.html Or are there other plans? Regards, Ronald.

Re: stable ports?

2010-04-06 Thread Alex Dupre
Ivan Voras ha scritto: In some cases the burdens are obvious - the maintainer(s) would need to e.g. maintain three versions of the ports - a random example would be e.g. X.Org 7.0 for 6.x, 7.2 for 7.x and 7.4 for 8.x. Another would be keeping PHP 5.2 for 7.x and 8.x and having 5.3 in the

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Dominic Fandrey
On 29/03/2010 17:57, Ivan Voras wrote: One way to do it, my proposal, would be to maintain a stable overlay of the ports, one for each major supported branch (i.e. 6.x, 7.x, 8.x), containing ports deemed important for some reason. Who would be doing the additional work? I figure we'd need

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:57 PM, eculp ec...@encontacto.net wrote: Quoting Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org: Doug Hardie wrote: On 29 March 2010, at 08:57, Ivan Voras wrote: In some cases the burdens are obvious - the maintainer(s) would need to e.g. maintain three versions of the ports - a

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Garrett Cooper
it would follow the stagnating branches. See ref: Debian :) Also, nothing (for some values of nothing) would stop people running FreeBSD 6.x to track the 7.x stable ports branch if they want. Or not, depending on ports developers. What if the supported lifetime of the port upstream is less than

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote: Doug Hardie wrote: On 29 March 2010, at 08:57, Ivan Voras wrote: In some cases the burdens are obvious - the maintainer(s) would need to e.g. maintain three versions of the ports - a random example would be e.g. X.Org

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Garrett Cooper
the 7.x stable ports branch if they want. Or not, depending on ports developers. What if the supported lifetime of the port upstream is less than supported lifetime of FreeBSD branch? Only if an update is needed (e.g. for security purposes), either of these: 1) Some other OS, Linux

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 30.03.2010 09:30, schrieb Garrett Cooper: If this is really slick and tinderbox / whatever tools is doing its job and no PRs have been reported for X number of days on a given port (would require tie-ins to GNATS, or whatever), perhaps it would be nice if ports were automatically

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 30.03.2010 09:18, schrieb Garrett Cooper: There is one important note to make: Many times you're forced to upgrade packages because of ABI breakages, etc. What would happen if there was a CVE assigned for PNG tomorrow (like there was for JPEG a year and change ago) where mass changes

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-30 Thread Charlie Kester
On Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 04:55:01 PDT Matthias Andree wrote: I don't think this proposal is useful. Technically it would work, but socially it wouldn't. Why? RELENG_* tagging would require that port maintainers oversee the implications for all supported FreeBSD releases, possibly run tinderboxen

Re: stable ports?

2010-03-29 Thread Doug Hardie
On 29 March 2010, at 08:57, Ivan Voras wrote: In some cases the burdens are obvious - the maintainer(s) would need to e.g. maintain three versions of the ports - a random example would be e.g. X.Org 7.0 for 6.x, 7.2 for 7.x and 7.4 for 8.x. Another would be keeping PHP 5.2 for 7.x and 8.x