Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:01:10 +0200
From:      Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro>
To:        Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua>
Cc:        stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ports sup tag (was: Re: )
Message-ID:  <20040116170110.2a87e021@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro>
In-Reply-To: <20040116164933.E85031@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
References:  <20040116145335.G39895@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <E1AhU4l-000AwO-Ok@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> <20040116164933.E85031@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:51:57 +0200 (EET)
Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> wrote:

> 
> 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.

OK, now I understand what you mean and you are right indeed.

> > The only tag for cvsup-ping ports should be HEAD (.) unless you have a
> 
>  Should != must.

True.


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040116170110.2a87e021>