On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Roger Marquis stated: >>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:18:50PM +0200, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>>> So there is more "software bureaucracy" here than just applying >>>> one patch. > >You sure about that Dima? Whether one or several the patching doesn't >appear to be complicated or difficult to maintain. > >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 02:58:22PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: >> For those people following along in the mailing list, Dima >> sent me a private reply that took this thread off the list. >> I am done trying to help fix the python ports. > >Thanks for the good work Steve. > >Many of us are still wondering why this change was made outside of a >major OS version update. Wouldn't that have prevented the build bug >which started this thread? > >Considering the incompatibilities between python 2.X and 3.x (which >Guido has admitted was a mistake) please consider this a ports policy >request to require significant lang/* version updates be predicated on >equally significant OS version updates. > >Roger Marquis
There is a fallacy in that reasoning. If a major software version was released in the infancy of a new OS version release, a considerable amount of time could ensue before a new OS version was released with the new software version. Any OS which is not flexible or robust enough to accept and work with newer software is doing its user base a disservice. At the very least,the OS authors should be able to release a minor version bump to the OS in order to allow it to accommodate the newer software. -- Carmel _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
