Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:26:36 +0000 From: Frank Shute <frank@esperance-linux.co.uk> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: port collection RELEASE6.2 lost after reinstall with CVSUP Message-ID: <20080107112636.GA45507@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4781EAD0.70208@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <000601c85065$94c24de0$0a01a8c0@680nr0j> <20080106200517.GA42384@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20080106202415.GA97410@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20080107035841.GA44545@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <4781EAD0.70208@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 09:03:12AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > > Frank Shute wrote: > > > So if it's not branched but tagged, what's the difference between the > > ports tree I get if I use RELENG_4_8 compared to RELENG_7_0 as tags > > in my ports supfile? > > Probably not a very great deal -- you'll get equally disappointing > results for both of those. RELENG_X and RELENG_X_Y tags / branches > apply to the src collection *only*. If you try and use them on the > ports you'll end up with a whole lot of nothing. None of the ports > tree is intentionally tagged with anything matching 'RELENG' This is where the original poster went wrong, he first off used tag=. which got him current ports, decided he wanted 6.2 ports and used RELENG_6_2 as a tag in his ports supfile and got nothing. > > In general, you always want the HEAD of the ports tree. There's > very little point in using anything else. I was trying to make the point you should use tag=. in ports supfile. > However it is possible > to use RELEASE_X_Y_0 to match the state of the ports tree used > to generate the packages distributed with X.Y RELEASE, or if you > still haven't upgraded all your 4.x machines yet, you can use > RELEASE_4_EOL to match the last state of the tree before the 4.x > compatability code was stripped out. This I didn't know. It used to be AFAIR that because of disk constraints only head was available. But I see from the CVS tags page that you can get the tree in it's old state with tags such as: RELENG_6_2_0_RELEASE http://www.uk.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvs-tags.html A.7.2 > > Note that cvsup'ing an old version of the ports tree is not > guaranteed to provide a workable ports collection: the dist files > the ports rely upon are not in the control of the FreeBSD project > and there is no assurance that old versions of software are still > available for download. Plus you will be struggling with unfixed > security bugs if you've installed portaudit -- or installing > vulnerable software if you haven't. I can't see the point in holding old versions of the ports tree except for nostalgic reasons and masochists. Although, I suppose portdowngrade works with it (never used it). Even the oldest machine you can usually upgrade to something new. E.g Tags for my webserver (300MHz Celeron 128MB) is tag=. for ports and RELEASE_6_3 for src. Works fine. Used to have problems building ruby due to the low memory so just built a package on my workstation and copied it over. > > Cheers, > > Matthew Thanks for explaining how things currently stand, Matthew. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080107112636.GA45507>