> Work on current is something that naturally occurs. It does not mean there > are enough resources to *duplicate that work* and do the same on stable.
Obvious facts make obvious points. The snapshots for current and the security errata is good enough for me. It's easy and allows me to run current, which is closest following developers. If everyone personally did so, there would be less need for back-porting, but that's not my decision. I don't care about binary patches to stable, since current is easier for me. Maybe somebody outside the project and known developers tried to make fuss out of nothing just to agitate developers and users. Maybe advising the blogger to try provide an unnecessary but annoying patch to the migration FAQ regarding binary patches that nobody actually needs that badly (and if they need there is a reputable source) was enough to annoy me. This may have been totally imaginary publicity stunt, targeted at wasting time and energy. Or occasionally pushing into the OpenBSD developers constraints that I don't like either, precisely like you. Thanks for the explanation, anyway that was obvious to me. Initially, I was annoyed that someone tried to call a "con" (negative feature) what is actually in my appreciation one of the best and easiest to use achievements, actually a "pro" feature that is snapshots and pkg_add -u. Simply because that person refused to learn this method to update exists and insisted to make it confusing for newcomers. There is no such imaginary "con" period. This exactly upgrade path is still lacking in major Linux distributions and also in FreeBSD until some time, still sucks there though. With OpenBSD it just works. Tremendously well for me for many years. Thanks you. That same person tried to submit to the site a totally mangled wording of nonsense to the FAQ migration section which I think is simply ridiculous even after the so called re-work which was even more so funny. Don't call names around without reading the details, please. I respect deeply the tremendous work done on the Perl ports infrastructure and think these are amazing and work great. For me it does. It can be made known to the newcomers as well. But no need to confuse them with some pidgin nonsensical twists in the overloaded migration FAQ. For me the upgrade path works, I don't compile anything meaning I use a binary upgrade path. I upgrade from snapshots and then do pkg_add -u and like it. It works fast, and is efficient. I don't understand how someone tries to stick their head in the sand and insists other newcomers do the same by confusing them in the FAQ and giving them the notion of sticking with stable just to add more pressure to back-port, yuck. I don't like somebody reducing chances of others to understand well the efficient upgrade that could be most appropriate for newcomers. And I don't like external parties agitating developers so that's why I responded initially. Enough already, I'm cool and don't intend to waste my time with the attempts those ill advisers try to inflict any further. My point was that the provided so far by OpenBSD is enough, good, sufficient and there is no need for any biased blog posts and poorly worded FAQ deterioration. Bloggers... I don't care about what some Linux user tries to publish on the OpenBSD page since it is not worth annoying anyone over it any more. Enough energy wasted on this subject already, why go further? Everything was and is good as it is. If you want to address your dissatisfaction, please move up the thread to the original post. I am sorry I wasted my time with these outrageously insane linuxisms.
