On Tue., 6 Dec. 2016 at 4:44 am, Julian Elischer <[email protected]> wrote:
> they are effectively useless because the results are not archived, and > the quarterly pkg branch actually changes day by day, so making two > machines from the same quarterly branch can give you different > machines (making it useless for paying work) > > not to mention that if you use the quarterly pkg branch you run he > risk of it completely changing if you happen to be unlucky enough to > be doing it across a quarterly boundary. then you end up with a > completely messed up system. (from experience). > > > SO a couple of things.. new quarterly pkg releases should have > different names and be pointed to by a symlink or something. Other > wise you can't avoid the smashed system problem. (half the pkgs from > one quarter and the other half from the previous one, which you can't > find any more. > > > But the big question still remains.. > > What do you think you are solving and why are they changing? shouldn't > a snapshot be stable? > > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" > I believe the concept is simply: provide a set of ports that does not change for 3 months, with the exception of security updates and fixes for broken functionality. It also offers a certain degree of predictability: you shouldn't see a big set of pkg updates until the new calendar quarter, when you can plan for it. Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
