Re: git: 589aaaeb09b7 - main - multimedia/libvpx: update 1.14.0
- Reply: Daniel Engberg : "Re: git: 589aaaeb09b7 - main - multimedia/libvpx: update 1.14.0"
- Reply: Gleb Popov : "Re: git: 589aaaeb09b7 - main - multimedia/libvpx: update 1.14.0"
- In reply to: Mathieu Arnold : "Re: Re: git: 589aaaeb09b7 - main - multimedia/libvpx: update 1.14.0"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:40:11 UTC
20.01.2024 14:10, Mathieu Arnold пишет: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:07:03PM +0300, Vladimir Druzenko wrote: >> Can we make some kind of schedule for mass bumps of huge ports? >> Users who build from ports can schedule upgrade and prevent build something >> very big "2 days in a row". >> Even if you use binary packages, updating for example virtualbox will entail >> a restart (savestate/start) of all virtual machines, and this must be >> planned in advance. >> If this already exists, please point to it. >> Thanks! > Hi, > > I am not sure what you are complaining about. > On the one side, it seems that you want to build things yourself and to > have everything up-to-date and you upgrade every day. > On the other side it seems that you would like to have things not > updated so you don't have to rebuild things every day. > > If you absolutely want to upgrade every day by yourself, then, well, you > have to expect to rebuild things, large and small two days in a row once > in a while... > > Use binary packages, there, I fixed the rebuild every day problem you > have. > > Then you say that if virtualbox gets an update, you need to restart > your virtual machines, and that it is a problem. > Well, it is only a problem if you have the absolute need to upgrade as > soon as possible. > And in that case, it is your problem. > Most of the time, the virtualbox updates are not critical security > issues and they can be planned on your side for when it is convenient > for you. > > In any way, nobody forces you to upgrade as soon as there is an update > of a port, but in the same way, nothing is going to force the rest of us > to not commit to ports because it is inconvenient for you... Complaining? Why do you think so? I just ask about possibility to planning. If no - maybe create one? Maybe somebody have ideas how to do this better and etc? It isn't "complaining". Maybe my poor English is the issue… About virtualbox: I planned update several days ago for yesterday, but today I got bump. Same for firefox - just updated and now I must do it again or get "problems" with prepare update for my ports (freerdp* depends on ffmpeg). If I had known about today's mass bump, I would have planned update for today instead of yesterday. And keep a lot of time… I don't need update as soon as possible, but I need to know how long (approximately) I must wait before next mass bump for planning update. Sorry again for my poor English. -- Best regards, Vladimir Druzenko