svn commit: r364739 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/syslog-ng-devel sysutils/syslog-ng-devel/files

[John Marino]

On 8/13/2014 09:05, Czanik, Péter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at komquats.com> wrote:
>> Some people actually use this stuff, bleeding edge -CURRENT with bleeding
>> edge ports. If people want to try out and test new software on the latest
>> -CURRENT, by the time the rest of us use the release-ready versions most of
>> the bugs have been ironed out. At the expense of a little repo bloat our
>> upline and users receive a better product in the end.
> 
> That's it. Our users are asking for the alpha releases to be easily
> available, as they need some of the new features. So I prepare Linux
> packages and FreeBSD ports, as building from source without package
> management is not acceptable for most users. And it's also good for
> us, syslog-ng upstream, as most of the development is done on Linux,
> and having alpha releases in FreeBSD helps to keep syslog-ng
> multi-platform. Any Linux only code surfaces easily when I start
> packaging for FreeBSD :)
> Once the -devel port is mature enough (after a few maintenance
> releases) it is moved to sysutils/syslog-ng and the old syslog-ng port
> is moved to a versioned port, like sysutils/syslog-ng34. The 3.3
> version is reaching end of life soon, so that port will be removed
> later this year, or early next year.
> Bye,
> 

Thank Peter,
You obviously make a strong case.  I'm basically asking that each
"-devel" port maintainer (which I agree should also maintain the stable
port) be able to make a strong case for their port and that the bar be
set fairly high.  With this rationale, you'd clear that bar.

Of the 140 other ports, I think many maintainers would have more trouble
justifying the existence of the port.

Thanks for weighing in,
John