From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 16 06:59:51 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 BB28316A526 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rdsnet.ro (smtp.rdsnet.ro [62.231.74.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4EA843D45 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:59:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from itetcu@apropo.ro) Received: (qmail 27387 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2004 14:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro) (81.196.25.19) by mail.rdsnet.ro with SMTP; 16 Jan 2004 14:59:47 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:01:10 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov Message-Id: <20040116170110.2a87e021@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> In-Reply-To: <20040116164933.E85031@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> References: <20040116145335.G39895@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> <20040116164933.E85031@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: Pete French cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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 14:59:51 -0000 On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:51:57 +0200 (EET) Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > Hello! > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:31:51 +0000 > > Pete French 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