On 03 June 2012 PM 5:14:10 Adam Strohl wrote:
> On 6/3/2012 11:14, Erich wrote:
> > What I really do not understand in this whole discussion is very simple. Is it just a few people who run into problems like this or is this simply ignored by the people who set the strategy for FreeBSD?
> > I mention since yeares here that putting version numbers onto the port tree would solve many of these problems. All I get as an answer is that it is not possible.
> > I think that this should be easily possible with the limitation that older versions do not have security fixes. Yes, but of what help is a security fix if there is no running port for the fix?
> I feel like I'm missing something. Why would you ever want to go back
> to an old version of the ports tree? You're ignoring tons of security
> And if a port build is broken then the maintainer needs to fix it, that
> is the solution.
> I must be missing something else here, it just seems like the underlying
> "need" for this is misguided (and dangerous from a security perspective).
yes, you miss a very simple thing. Updated this morning your ports tree. Your client asks for something for Monday morning for which you need now a program which needs some kind of PNG but you did not install it.
Do you have a machine that is fast enough to upgrade all your ports and still finish what your client needs Monday morning?
The ports tree is not broken as such. Only the installation gets broken in some sense. Have a version number there would allow people to go back to the last known working ports tree, install the software - or whatever has to be done - with a working system.
Of course, the next step will be an upgrade. But only after the work which brings in the money is done.
You do not face this problem on Windows. You can run a 10 year old 'kernel' and still install modern software.