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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
