From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul  7 20:29:20 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4296816A4CE
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jul 2004 20:29:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from web12007.mail.yahoo.com (web12007.mail.yahoo.com
	[216.136.172.215])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 20A8F43D48
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jul 2004 20:29:20 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rbmailer-dev@yahoo.com)
Message-ID: <20040707202920.15304.qmail@web12007.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [208.186.106.149] by web12007.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:29:20 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: <rbmailer-dev@yahoo.com>
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20040707200227.GA31307@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: Can't cvsup ports?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:29:20 -0000

--- Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> wrote:
> First of all, it is strongly recommened that you use ports-all without
> a refuse file.  It will save you pain if you want to build an INDEX
> later.
>
Hm.  What's an INDEX?  Some abbreviated lookup mechanism?  Don't see it
in the Handbook.

> Second, and more importantly there is no RELENG_4_9 tag.  It's
> RELEASE_4_9_0 for ports (though you probably don't want a tag at all
> since that will result in an out of date ports collection which contains
> known security problems.)
> 
Ah.  Of course.  That explains why nothing's coming.  Ok.

Question on the current vs. RELEASE_4_9_x, though - I'm still on 4.9 &
don't want to upgrade to 4.10, right now.  If I get current ports, won't
there (possibly) be 4.10 dependencies?  Not sure I want that...

Thanx for the info.
rickb

=====
A mind is not a vessel to be filled,
it is a fire to be ignited.
  -- Plutarch