From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 16 07:20:12 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 D84B716A4CE for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:20:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from rdsnet.ro (smtp.rdsnet.ro [62.231.74.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A83143D5F for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:20:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from itetcu@apropo.ro) Received: (qmail 8422 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2004 15:20:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro) (81.196.25.19) by mail.rdsnet.ro with SMTP; 16 Jan 2004 15:20:07 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:21:30 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Pete French Message-Id: <20040116172130.38886116@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> In-Reply-To: References: <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:20:13 -0000 On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:59:49 +0000 Pete French wrote: > > 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. You could also use date= in the cvsup file to get a more recent version of the tree that you you know it will build the ports you use. > 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. If it works don't fix it ? :) Reasons: - bugs discovered and corrected - ports "unbroken" from the -RELEASE time - updates -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user