From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 6 21:10:57 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D5F106566C for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:10:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from garmitage@swin.edu.au) Received: from gpo2.cc.swin.edu.au (gpo2.cc.swin.edu.au [136.186.1.31]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DC08FC0A for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [136.186.229.44] (garmitage3.caia.swin.edu.au [136.186.229.44]) by gpo2.cc.swin.edu.au (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q56LAsgQ021823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Jun 2012 07:10:55 +1000 Message-ID: <4FCFC75E.4000707@swin.edu.au> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:10:54 +1000 From: grenville armitage User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111003 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <3019920.ozTXahhPXd@x220.ovitrap.com> <15075001.JBc1UY2ed2@x220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Ports from a particular date in the past... Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:10:57 -0000 On 06/07/2012 00:16, Chris Rees wrote: > On 6 June 2012 14:12, Erich wrote: [..] >> is my English really this bad? >> >> From the handbook: >> >> '. In particular, use only tag=. for the ports-* collections.' > > Your English is fine, but "being told to use tag=." != "tag=. is the > only tag that exists". Another data point: In Erich's defense, I'd say his interpretation is quite understandable. "...use only tag=. for the ports-* collections" also left me with the distinct impression (some many moons in the past) that there are no other meaningful (or safe) tags when csup'ing the Ports tree. In 12 years of using FreeBSD I've never really sought out Erich's use case (viz. roll back /usr/ports to some past known-good version), I just assumed it wasn't possible. So this thread has taught at least one person (me) a new thing -- I never fully grokked that adding "date=" to the supfile could achieve this desired result when csup'ing the Ports tree. Now I know, and I've changed the Subject line of this email in the hope it helps some future soul googling for the answer. cheers, gja