From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 12 14:37:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E26816A41A for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:37:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from ranger.systems.pipex.net (ranger.systems.pipex.net [62.241.162.32]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238A413C4EA for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:37:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [192.168.23.2] (62-31-10-181.cable.ubr05.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.10.181]) by ranger.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF64EE0002E1; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:37:06 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <47386512.6080606@dial.pipex.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:37:06 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20061205 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Greenwood References: <000f01c82212$c1b9e3c0$452dab40$@com> <47332EBE.3000900@gmail.com> <000a01c822b6$2f8ed060$8eac7120$@com> <47384AF7.4090106@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47384AF7.4090106@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Si Thu , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:37:25 -0000 Andy Greenwood wrote: > If you want the newer versions of software from the ports tree, don't > limit your results by the tag. Basically, you're saying (IIRC) "I want > the version of the port that was included with this release" instead > of "I want the most recent version of this port." the release versions > of the ports will only be updated for bug fixes, etc. Unless something has changed recently, this is not correct. The release versions of the ports are *never* updated for anything; not security fixes, not features, nothing. The ports tree is not like, say, Fedora Linux rpms. What you say is true of the *base* system, but not true for ports. Technically, the ports tree is not branched, because it's a) too much of a maintenance burden and b) apparently CVS is likely to struggle, which I can believe. The ports tree is *tagged* (not branched) when the release ISOs are made, and those tags are never moved. For cv(s)uping ports there are only two reasonable tags, as far as I know: "." which means the latest ports tree or a date: when you desperately need to get back to the ports tree you had say a week ago because it worked and your current one doesn't and you are desperate. --Alex