From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Thu Feb 1 01:12:51 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE51EC9F81; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 01:12:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56CEC8195A; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 01:12:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.19.1] (unknown [127.0.1.132]) by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF65713390; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 01:12:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan@FreeBSD.org) From: "Jonathan Anderson" To: rgrimes@freebsd.org Cc: "Nathan Whitehorn" , "Steve Wills" , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r328593 - head/release/scripts Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:42:49 -0330 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201801301828.w0UIScsT026083@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201801301828.w0UIScsT026083@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 01:12:51 -0000 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 ports from some out-of-date tarball doesn't seem to match best 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