Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:32:50 +0300 (EET DST) From: Jukka Huvinen <jhuvinen@cc.hut.fi> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tracking 4-stable rather than 4.8-stable Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.50.0305271019240.450246-100000@lyta.hut.fi> In-Reply-To: <200305261444.59364.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <3ED12C07.4080102@chez.com> <200305260127.12625.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <Pine.OSF.4.50.0305260929210.382232-100000@lyta.hut.fi> <200305261444.59364.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Michael Nottebrock wrote: (...) > So the "stable" packages are not build from a (nonexistent) RELENG_4 ports > collection, they just represent a snapshot of the ports collection at a time > where FreeBSD's RELENG_4 branch itself is -STABLE (as in uname -a output). As > you can see in that ftp directory, this works in a similar fashion for > 5.0-RELEASE vs. 5-CURRENT. Ok. Now I understand this, finally. ;) The reason why I would go for a little older package "snapshot", is that those packages would be all available. Unfortunately, the current tree does not have all ports available as packages. But if I go to an older ports snaphot (e.g. using the time tag), those are not available either as a complete collection of packages (except for releases). A complete and recent snaphot of both tree and packages would be nice... So, just use the current and get what I can and the rest from sources. Thanks for all replies! -- Jukka
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.50.0305271019240.450246-100000>