From nobody Sat Aug 24 21:45:08 2024 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Wrr8L2l7jz5TdxR for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:45:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=74YI=PX=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Wrr8K1gl8z4sTR for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:45:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=74YI=PX=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=quip.cz header.s=private header.b=EyOwpFJb; dkim=pass header.d=quip.cz header.s=private header.b=ZMSqQ0+p; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of "SRS0=74YI=PX=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz" has no SPF policy when checking 94.124.105.4) smtp.mailfrom="SRS0=74YI=PX=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz" Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B685D7890; Sat, 24 Aug 2024 23:45:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quip.cz; s=private; t=1724535913; bh=qBmAKYJeULgthFxIpGcba31qulQEIPCjxbNKPeKvPlo=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:Cc:In-Reply-To; b=EyOwpFJbfGl1Ho3l7xsVUYbma90WL2UpAQS3cIAvqzUoKVbsAwecFDJRn6Eyj5pOx UzY32md6dSQbQ0k626p9z363v0Hlc2kDZISbM0Hmi2I01ZajVpXxm/wN1zXjTbo1yb GrqB+qY8VYz4IHjGWod5gDEUnCy7aXYL/93i1gyg= Received: from [192.168.145.49] (ip-89-177-27-225.bb.vodafone.cz [89.177.27.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A31CD788C; Sat, 24 Aug 2024 23:45:09 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quip.cz; s=private; t=1724535909; bh=qBmAKYJeULgthFxIpGcba31qulQEIPCjxbNKPeKvPlo=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:Cc:In-Reply-To; b=ZMSqQ0+pZLiOef4ndC54ELNUD7FR5clZL8h2iPqWYEfmBL8DSUIoF6gE8g0uWYGfr BYzpOPXatUb94dcEKFfslqy7JuS/qkVyjGSvbEIpIZdO/5jylCBFCxAYsZzeHKbbzo F8Y2Qyjx/sUn4Y524VBxHbt+M/EZLDeOJ5c2/zD0= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 23:45:08 +0200 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Quarterly 13.3 amd64 package inconsistency? To: ports@freebsd.org References: <2B3303CA-47D2-4D37-93AC-86E64972F8A1@distal.com> <4F2AAB39-2516-4626-B9E9-F367218A9636@distal.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: cross+freebsd@distal.com In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spamd-Bar: - X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.99 / 15.00]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=74YI=PX=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[quip.cz:s=private]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[freebsd]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[quip.cz]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42000, ipnet:94.124.104.0/21, country:CZ]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=74YI=PX=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[quip.cz:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Wrr8K1gl8z4sTR On 24/08/2024 19:48, Chris Ross wrote: [..] >>> I haven't tested that software nor confirmed version dependencies. The ports tree shows the versions in the trees as mentioned but does not have a version requirement checked for dependencies. >> >> Dependency info referenced above. Is there perhaps an issue with the >> py-openssl port then? > > Coming back to this. I temporarily switched my pkg config to use latest > instead of quarterly, which allowed me to pull in pyopenssl 24.1.0.1 > and I am now running. However, I think the problem still exists in > quarterly, and should be corrected. > > I’ll drop it if no-one else cares, but it seems a “broken window” that > should be fixed. We use quarterly packages on all our machines and more and more often I see that something is broken in quarterly and the fix never makes it from HEAD to quarterly, or that a package in quarterly has a security vulnerability, the fix is in HEAD but no one merges the security fix into quarterly (e.g. Postgres). So increasingly I feel like quarterly serves no purpose except to freeze for three months, even if it's broken. I think if anything is broken in quarterly and the fix is known (in HEAD) it should be MFH. I know it is sometimes complicated because of cross dependencies, but other cases are simple. Are some rules for MFH to quarterly defined in handbook or somewhere else? Kind regards Miroslav Lachman