Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:03:47 -0700 From: Ed Flecko <edflecko@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: svn checkout "head" or "stable" Message-ID: <CAFS4T6bMvrPFBECkT_dOZd4XWTAFt_-j62fO1C8YS8C38wpNXw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My goal is to simply have a production server that's fully patched, but I will be running custom kernels (which is why I'm not using freebsd-update). I've seen a lot of subversion references to checking out the "head" branch and the "stable" branch. I understand the "head" branch is the most current, so that's the same as the "current" branch, right? If I understand correctly, "most" people will not follow the "current" branch for production servers. My goal is to have all of the files I need to rebuild my kernel and my system after security updates have been released, therefore I should do something like: svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/9 /usr/src svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/ports/stable/9 /usr/ports svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/doc/stable/9 /usr/doc This will give me everything I need to recompile and have a fully patched system, right? I do not make changes to the src, ports, or doc directories. From that point forward, as new security patches are released, I can simply: svn up /usr/src svn up /usr/ports svn up /usr/doc and once again rebuild my kernel and system. Does this sound correct? Ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFS4T6bMvrPFBECkT_dOZd4XWTAFt_-j62fO1C8YS8C38wpNXw>