From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Apr 17 20:33:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F236C37B5E8 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:33:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (doug@master [10.0.0.2]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA56279; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@gorean.org) Message-ID: <38FBD778.67D5E7F9@gorean.org> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:33:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT-0409 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: basic /usr/ports/Mk question References: <20000417131432.A6752@visi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Stephen wrote: > > I'm currently running 3.4-20000311-STABLE. As new versions of FreeBSD are > released I run into problems compiling individual ports that I've > downloaded (the latest lftp, for example). Usually, the cause is an > out-of-date /usr/ports/Mk tree. Is there an easy, non-cvs way of keeping > this current? cvs and more specifically for ports, cvsup is the canonical way to keep your tree up to date. Why would you not want to use it? Doug -- Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. -- W. Somerset Maugham To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message