SVN RELEASE_9_2_0

[Bryan Drewery]

On 10/20/2013 8:42 PM, Jason C. Wells wrote:
> Today I tripped over another package that had broken dependencies even
> thought It was supposedly a package that was from 9.2-RELEASE release
> process. It was celestia, installed from 9.2-release packages, which
> depended on libpangox.so.1. I tried to roll my own. The build was broken
> too.
> 
> My question still stands. Is FreeBSD now building packages prior to the
> actual tagging of the ports tree as RELEASE_9_2_0? It seems like this is
> the case since the dates of the packages in the FTP archive pre-date the
> release date.
> 
> For many many releases now I have run only unmodified -release with the
> equivalent ports. And it was good. Now I'm having issues with the
> quality of the ports. I am concerned that it is due to a failure in the
> release process. I might be wrong.
> 
> If I'm not, then my request is to not put the cart before the horse and
> ship ports labelled in the FTP archive as -release when they are really
> just a snapshot of a point in time close the release date. That's very
> unFreeBSD like.
> 
> i.e.:
> 
> freeze it
> build it
> fix it
> build it
> no errors? no changes?
> tag it
> ship it
> 
> It seems like we skipped freeze it, fix it, and check for errors. We
> just built it and shipped it, then later we tagged it for release. Or
> maybe we never did the above and I personally just got lucky for 4 major
> versions. I do seem to recall things like "ports freeze" on the RE
> schedule.
> 
> Regards,
> Jason C. Wells
> 

Yes this was all done. Ports have never been 100% building without error
though. Many ports were broken during 9.2 time. 1959 ports (of 24,000)
are either failing or broken for upcoming 10. This is why we are now
sending out weekly build error emails to maintainers.

Absolutely many will be broken in the 10 -release tag still. This is a
best effort and there is no "stable" ports tree. I'm frankly not sure
why anyone would run the -release ports tag as it is immediately old,
insecure and unsupported. It's not possible for anyone to help fix
issues you find there. On the other hand if you report errors in the
real ports tree, we can fix them.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20131020/c1083b9a/attachment.sig>