Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I share this frustration with you. I was once told that the pain in > upgrading is due largely to a somewhat invisible difference between > installing a pre-compiled package, and building+installing a port. In > theory, if you stick to one method or the other, things will stay mostly > consistent. But if you mix them, and particularly if you update the > ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One > thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases, > and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this > would involve an exponentially larger amount of effort from the ports > team, and I don't fault them for not doing it. Still, it would be nice > to have.
Speaking as a port maintainer, if these branches would allow to just "MFC" updates from HEAD that are proven and meet dependency requirements for the new version, I think I'd be able to handle this. The major ports for concern I maintain (db3* db4*) have forked minor versions for compatibility anyways. If it's a "bugfix only" policy that may involve ripping out the minimum fix out of a larger patch set, it'll pretty much be a non-starter for me unless someone funds that work. -- Matthias Andree _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
