On 29.01.2018 22:27, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:16:05PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 29.01.2018 22:01, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>>> Another point is to set a rule that ABI is stable between patch versions >>>> and binary packages (prebuilt software) still works as-is. I'm observing >>>> now users who abandon researching this OS just because a patch version >>>> of kerberos is not compatible with existing packages. >>> >>> This is wrong. It's not a patch version, but a different minor release. >>> >>> Joerg >>> >> >> Right, and we push broken packages to users: >> >> lrwxrwxr-x 1 bouyer netbsd 3 Mar 15 2017 7.1 -> 7.0 >> >> http://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/packages/NetBSD/amd64/ >> >> Assuming that we don't have resources / interest to build proper >> packages it might be better to revise this state and improve the >> situation. (My proposal is to abandon minor releases. Abandon CAs in >> favor of frequent patch releases.) > > The correct fix is the same it has been for years: focus the resources > for binary packages on the latest minor release. Killing minor releases > is not going to improve anything except making things go even more stale > by forcing more work for pullup-compatible solutions. > > Joerg > I'm not biased towards any approach. I just note that the current approach with shipping binary packages and SA is inefficient and deter users.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature