Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: , freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/29767: incorrect description of 'standart-supfile' Message-ID: <XFMail.010816075907.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200108160800.f7G803398475@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16-Aug-01 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > The following reply was made to PR docs/29767; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> > To: Olexandr Kunytsa <kunia@x-telecom.net> > Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: docs/29767: incorrect description of 'standart-supfile' > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:58:13 +0300 > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0300, Olexandr Kunytsa wrote: > > > > standard-supfile in -stable now gets you the -stable sources, but it > > is pointed inside the file that it contains "CVSup collections" for > > current-sources. > > > And also in README. I think that either > > standard-supfile should be deleted from -STABLE > > *OR* > standard-supfile should be (repo)moved to current-supfile > in -CURRENT, and MFC'ed to -STABLE. With corrections to > README. Erm, in the original discussion about this, there was the point that 'standard-supfile' was supposed to follow whatever current branch you were on at the time. Thus, on 4.x, standard-supfile follows RELENG_4, on 4.3, it follows RELENG_4_3, and on -current it follows HEAD. I think that a current-supfile might not be a bad idea however. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010816075907.jhb>