Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:09:05 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Anatoly Karp <karp@math.wisc.edu> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Q] ports vs ports-stable Message-ID: <20010202020905.B81549@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200102020603.f12632p34934@tolik.localdomain>; from karp@math.wisc.edu on Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:03:02AM -0600 References: <200102020603.f12632p34934@tolik.localdomain>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:03:02AM -0600, Anatoly Karp wrote: > I am tracking -STABLE sources branch, but being > relatively new to FreeBSD I am somewhat confused > about a sound ports tracking strategy. Namely, > > 1) is it true that, at any given moment, > a particular port may not work properly > (on a -STABLE box)? Yes. Obviously we do what we can to make things work, but ultimately you get what you pay for :-) > 2) if so, is there a way for me to adjust > my "ports-supfile" to only track "stable" > ports? > > (in particluar, I noticed the existence of > > ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/ports-stable/ > > - is this what I want?) There is only one ports collection - it is not branched like the source code has a -current and a -stable branch. The above links actually both point to the same place: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root 207 5 Feb 27 2000 ports-current -> ports lrwxrwxrwx 1 root 207 5 Feb 27 2000 ports-stable -> ports Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6eodBWry0BWjoQKURAmJkAKD6KGg5Z4tSQDZjG0QrORNigHli8ACghf1D GoQ3weRNo5n37y4Z+NgVo18= =hipZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010202020905.B81549>