Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:42:49 -0330 From: "Jonathan Anderson" <jonathan@FreeBSD.org> To: rgrimes@freebsd.org Cc: "Nathan Whitehorn" <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, "Steve Wills" <swills@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r328593 - head/release/scripts Message-ID: <B0EBD437-55A8-4CD7-AA69-0B8C11E46AC8@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201801301828.w0UIScsT026083@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201801301828.w0UIScsT026083@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 Jan 2018, at 14:58, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> Do we even want to include the ports tree on install media? >> Extracting >> ports from some out-of-date tarball doesn't seem to match best >> practices >> for ports and it takes up quite a lot of space. >> -Nathan > > Yes, you want to ship a known working known building and tested ports > tree with the release, as there is no tag to pull this specific tree > out of svn. > > I suppose it might be ok top stop putting it in the .iso's, > but this tarball should remain avaliable with the distrubtion > file sets on the ftp server. Is a tarball required, or is it really just the ports tree revision number that one needs? Speaking of which, would it be much work for us to annotate binary packages with a revision number for the ports tree the package was built from? That might make it easier to reproduce package builds, build identical-except-for-one-option packages, etc. Jon -- Jonathan Anderson jonathan@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B0EBD437-55A8-4CD7-AA69-0B8C11E46AC8>