Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:04:26 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro> To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: ports sup tag (was: Re: ) Message-ID: <20040116140426.1706ca41@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> In-Reply-To: <20040116131248.G36380@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> References: <20040116131248.G36380@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:20:47 +0200 (EET) Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> wrote: > > Hello! > > > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:53:18 +0100 > > From: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@FreeBSD.org> > > > > freshly updated ports tree on a 4.9 box is exactly the same as a > > > > freshly updated ports tree on a 5.2 box. > > >=20 > > > Read the users email. They're using specific tags, not "." so there are > > > (or may be) some differences as time elapses. > > > > Users should not use tags for ports collection. It's > > documentated also. > > Umm... What exactly is negative impact of using, for example, > tag=RELEASE_5_2_0 for getting ports collection which came with 5.2-RELEASE > via CVSup? None. But if you want the snap-shot of 5.2R's ports why cvsup ? The cvsup will get you nothing. > Yes, I understand that I won't get fixes and improvements which > came after ports tree freeze and creation of RELEASE_5_2_0 tag. I don't > need them. What else should I be aware of? I've made it several times, then > compared CVSupped ports tree against fresh one which came with 5.2-RELEASE - > they are the same. If you cvsup with 5_2_0 they will not be different until the end of world. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040116140426.1706ca41>