Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>