From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 16 06:59:51 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 C0EC316A527
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk (dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk
	[194.200.93.187])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742D843D46
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:59:50 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from petefrench@keithprowse.com)
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk with local (Exim
	4.30; FreeBSD)	id 1AhVRt-000BRD-6o; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:59:49 +0000
To: itetcu@apropo.ro, petefrench@keithprowse.com
In-Reply-To: <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro>
Message-Id: <E1AhVRt-000BRD-6o@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
From: Pete French <petefrench@keithprowse.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:59:49 +0000
cc: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua
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
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:59:52 -0000

> There is no such a thing as "4.9 ports tree"  or "5.2 ports tree". Some

Sigh.. to make it *very* clear

"4.9 ports tree" = "the ports tree that was on the 4.9 RELEASE CD"
"5.2 ports tree" = "the ports tree that was on the 5.2 RELEASE CD"

> release, from which the packages for that release where build, in which
> case you will use the release name, eg. 4_9_0.

Which is what I *do* want.

I am cvsupping anumber of machines. I am doing this on different days, but I
want to end up with the same ports. If I just use '.' then I cant guarantee
this, as ports change all the time. If I use one of the tags then I know
I am getting the same set of ports. I also know that as that set of ports
was frozen for a release then they are guaranteed to work and build together.
I hav (occasionally) used the '.' tag and got a set of ports that didnt quite
build togther.

I dont see why people have a conceptual problem with this. To me its the
obvious way to ensure that you are always going to get the same set of ports
on a machine, no matter how far into the future from the -RELEASE you
happen to update it.

-pcf.