From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 24 04:23:47 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E389D16A417 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:23:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A402E13C4CC for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:23:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 12288 invoked by uid 399); 24 Nov 2007 03:57:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2007 03:57:06 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <4747A110.9090805@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:57:04 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete French References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ? 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: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:23:48 -0000 Pete French wrote: > I have a set of machines running 7.0 and a set running 6.3 which I > would like to use the same ports on. I was under the impression that > there was only one ports tree, so is it safe to simply untar the > ports.tgz file from 7.0 on the 6.3 machines, rename INDEX-7 to INDEX-6 > and install away, or are there more subtle differences to tran the unwary ? You've already received the right advice about not renaming the INDEX, but I think it's also worth mentioning that untar'ing a static picture of the ports tree is of little practical value unless you never plan to update the base, and you never plan to update any ports on that machine. You're much better off starting with downloading the tree with csup, that way you can maintain it more easily down the road. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection