Morning,
> Am 20.09.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Mark Linimon :
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:15:32AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>> A pointer to the official policy would be nice 8-}
>
> 3rd paragraph of:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/policies_eol.html
One comment: it's
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:33:20PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> FreeBSD has always had a policy of backwards compatibility. By that
> definition we are stable. What we don't promise is full forwards
> compatibility, which is what you are asking for.
In particular, "we add things to the ABI"
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:15:32AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> A pointer to the official policy would be nice 8-}
3rd paragraph of:
http://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/policies_eol.html
mcl
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
Hi!
> Am 20.09.2017 um 04:09 schrieb Aristedes Maniatis :
> At the very least I need to remember to keep poudriere on the x.0 release
> even after it is EOL,
> until every one of my servers has been upgraded
Not necessarily. You can run build jails with lower OS versions on an
On 20/9/17 11:33AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> FreeBSD has always had a policy of backwards compatibility. By that
> definition we are stable. What we don't promise is full forwards
> compatibility, which is what you are asking for.
Correct. Within the stable branch I'd always assumed forward
On Sep 19, 2017 6:05 PM, "Aristedes Maniatis" wrote:
Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
> Ports are still being built according to the same policy -- on the
> earliest still-supported release of each major branch.
>
> It's just that now, for 11.x and subsequent, 11.0 goes out of support a
Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
> Ports are still being built according to the same policy -- on the
> earliest still-supported release of each major branch.
>
> It's just that now, for 11.x and subsequent, 11.0 goes out of support a
> month or so after 11.1-RELEASE comes out. You're meant to have
Hi all,
> Am 19.09.2017 um 10:32 schrieb Aristedes Maniatis :
> Then we have a problem since
> https://pkg.freebsd.org/freebsd:11:x86:64/latest/All/ has been built on 11.1,
> not on 11.0 (I just tested it with csync2 which I know fails). Packages there
> may fail to run on
On 19/09/2017 09:32, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> On 19/9/17 6:15PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Now that we are on a faster upgrade policy for minor branches, it is
>>> expected that we'll upgrade from 11.0 to 11.1 to 11.2 much faster than in
>>> the old days. I can cope with that, but it
On 19/9/17 6:15PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Now that we are on a faster upgrade policy for minor branches, it is
>> expected that we'll upgrade from 11.0 to 11.1 to 11.2 much faster than in
>> the old days. I can cope with that, but it appears that functional changes
>> are also being
Hi!
> Now that we are on a faster upgrade policy for minor branches, it is expected
> that we'll upgrade from 11.0 to 11.1 to 11.2 much faster than in the old
> days. I can cope with that, but it appears that functional changes are also
> being made within the stable branch as seen here:
>
>
11 matches
Mail list logo