From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 14 17:42:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE3D16A41F for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:42:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from judmarc@fastmail.fm) Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com (out4.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA5043D48 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:42:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from judmarc@fastmail.fm) Received: from frontend1.internal (mysql-sessions.internal [10.202.2.149]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F12DD3EB5C; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from web3.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.212]) by frontend1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:23 -0500 Received: by web3.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 1DB133ED; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1142358141.15371.256607782@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: 3gTNpzRU/8LVQxE7vp/yAUqUA+eICxciLtir1p2+Bmfw 1142358141 From: "Jud" To: mike@ascendency.net, "'Erik Trulsson'" , "'Duane Whitty'" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 5022 (F2.72; T1.15; A1.62; B3.04; Q3.03) References: <016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0@Mike8500> In-Reply-To: <016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0@Mike8500> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:21 -0500 Cc: freebsd-questions Subject: RE: Ports upgrade policy X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:42:25 -0000 On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:35:46 -0600, "Mike Loiterman" said: > Erik Trulsson wrote: [snip] > >>> Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for > >>> ports? Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get > >>> updated so I'm always running the latest version, but would it be > >>> better to sync both ports and source to RELEASE? [snip] > > Ports *are* tagged for each release, but they are not branched. > > Yes, I know, which is why I asked the question...which is better? Considerations I can think of - (1) Advantage of using -HEAD (-CURRENT): Updates to ports may include security fixes. (2) Disadvantage of using -HEAD (-CURRENT): It is possible, though perhaps not likely, that an updated port would require something your -RELEASE base system lacked. Jud