From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 26 08:11:51 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A089D40 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:11:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 400FF8FC08 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id qAQ8BnXx014954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:11:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.14.2/Submit) with UUCP id qAQ8Bnng014953; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:11:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from fbsd81 ([192.168.200.81]) by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA00292; Mon, 26 Nov 12 00:07:07 PST Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:07:09 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) To: kob6558@gmail.com Subject: Re: confirm that csup is still usable fos the new 9.1 Message-Id: <50b3151d.T/yqv0fC2duSYEm9%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <50A7DEE7.8090802@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ml@netfence.it, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:11:51 -0000 Kevin Oberman wrote: > ... don't bet that csup and cvs will be around long ... > It's really time to get away from CVS and I suspect > it will be going away sooner than had been planned. Once csup goes away, how will a base-only system update the sources, e.g. to follow a security branch?