From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 16 04:06:31 2004 Return-Path: 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 BEA1416A4CF for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rdsnet.ro (smtp.rdsnet.ro [62.231.74.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC9A43DA5 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:05:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from itetcu@apropo.ro) Received: (qmail 7145 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2004 12:03:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro) (81.196.25.19) by mail.rdsnet.ro with SMTP; 16 Jan 2004 12:03:04 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:04:26 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov Message-Id: <20040116140426.1706ca41@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> In-Reply-To: <20040116131248.G36380@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> References: <20040116131248.G36380@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: ports sup tag (was: Re: ) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:06:31 -0000 On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:20:47 +0200 (EET) Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > Hello! > > > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:53:18 +0100 > > From: Kirill Ponomarew > > > > freshly updated ports tree on a 4.9 box is exactly the same as a > > > > freshly updated ports tree on a 5.2 box. > > >=20 > > > Read the users email. They're using specific tags, not "." so there are > > > (or may be) some differences as time elapses. > > > > Users should not use tags for ports collection. It's > > documentated also. > > Umm... What exactly is negative impact of using, for example, > tag=RELEASE_5_2_0 for getting ports collection which came with 5.2-RELEASE > via CVSup? None. But if you want the snap-shot of 5.2R's ports why cvsup ? The cvsup will get you nothing. > Yes, I understand that I won't get fixes and improvements which > came after ports tree freeze and creation of RELEASE_5_2_0 tag. I don't > need them. What else should I be aware of? I've made it several times, then > compared CVSupped ports tree against fresh one which came with 5.2-RELEASE - > they are the same. If you cvsup with 5_2_0 they will not be different until the end of world. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user