Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:14:03 -0500 From: "Xn Nooby" <xnooby@gmail.com> To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcw@highperformance.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is there a "stable" ports tree? Message-ID: <bdf25fde0603160614t2ac32eb6k40c719779be6b8f4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4418EC55.9010301@highperformance.net> References: <bdf25fde0603052024q5028d6b6y9e8ce555df3a844f@mail.gmail.com> <20060306061938.GB14604@xor.obsecurity.org> <4418EC55.9010301@highperformance.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I like this idea. It's not fun when you try to update your system, then have to spend time fixing things. On 3/15/06, Jason C. Wells <jcw@highperformance.net> wrote: > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:24:08PM -0500, Xn Nooby wrote: > >> Is there a "stable" ports tree? > > > > No. > > However you can sup the ports tree for a specific release. I run ports > using "tag=3DRELEASE_6_0_0". The reason I do this is that I find it to b= e > much less work. > > I am a much more conservative user than many. I really hate chasing > down down upgrade dependencies even with the the very nice ports tools > we have today. > > If you really wanted a particular port to be updgraded, you can fetch > just that one port and build it. This would give you a manually > controlled psuedo-stable. It would be more work though. > > Later, > Jason C. Wells >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bdf25fde0603160614t2ac32eb6k40c719779be6b8f4>