Subject: Re: Binary package sets
To: Alistair Crooks <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 04/24/2001 10:57:31
Perhaps I, too, am missing the point.  I know I'm missing SOMEone's point! about flat-branching (read: tagging)?  You tag the last known
good version of each thing in pkgsrc with a tag indicating a "good"
release point, and post instructions on doing a tagged retrieval.
You get the benefit of having a point of stability without the overhead
of a branching effort.

Comments?  Am I being away too short-sighted?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alistair Crooks wrote:

# Subject: Re: Binary package sets
# On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:28:08PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
# > But with a branch, you can have code different between branch and trunk.
# > This may be required if we want a 'stable' package line, only updated
# > for security fixes (e.g we update a package which depends on different things
# > in branch or trunk; or something in mk/* was changed which requires 2 version
# > of the Makefile).
# >
# > --
# > Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. 
# > --
# [abra-ca-pocus]
# What you are basically proposing is that we start to branch pkgsrc
# in the way that basesrc is branched. However, there's a whole release
# engineering team standing behind that arrangement, and a whole lot
# more people, in general, maintaining that.
# Our resources are not exactly overabundant at the moment. Adding
# to the workload is, to me, infeasible.
# I could be wrong, and it all manages itself, but somehow, I don't
# think so.
# Regards,
# Alistair

*BSD: Twice the Bits-Clean of other Leading OSes.