Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:51:57 +0200 (EET) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports sup tag (was: Re: ) Message-ID: <20040116164933.E85031@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> References: <20040116145335.G39895@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <E1AhU4l-000AwO-Ok@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:31:51 +0000 > Pete French <petefrench@keithprowse.com> wrote: > > > > None. But if you want the snap-shot of 5.2R's ports why cvsup ? The > > > cvsup will get you nothing. > > > > That rather depends on what you are cvsupping from. I had 4.9 ports tree, > > I wanted 5.2 ports tree. I thought cvs might be a reasonable way to > > get it! > > There is no such a thing as "4.9 ports tree" or "5.2 ports tree". Some I say "5.2 ports tree" when I want to get ports tree which come with 5.2-RELEASE distribution. Such a thing definitely exists. Period. > The only tag for cvsup-ping ports should be HEAD (.) unless you have a Should != must. Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040116164933.E85031>