Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:46:57 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro> To: Pete French <petefrench@keithprowse.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports sup tag (was: Re: ) Message-ID: <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> In-Reply-To: <E1AhU4l-000AwO-Ok@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> References: <20040116145335.G39895@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <E1AhU4l-000AwO-Ok@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:31:51 +0000 Pete French <petefrench@keithprowse.com> wrote: > > None. But if you want the snap-shot of 5.2R's ports why cvsup ? The > > cvsup will get you nothing. > > That rather depends on what you are cvsupping from. I had 4.9 ports tree, > I wanted 5.2 ports tree. I thought cvs might be a reasonable way to > get it! There is no such a thing as "4.9 ports tree" or "5.2 ports tree". Some ports might build / don't on 4.9 / 5.2, or that they dependences, optimisation, etc. might differ if they are build on, lets say 5.2 rather that 4.9. If you cp -R /usr/ports from a 4.9 machine to a 5.2 machine they will just work, as they are *the same*. The only difference: on 4.x it is used /usr/ports/INDEX rather that /usr/ports/INDEX-5 on 5.x The only tag for cvsup-ping ports should be HEAD (.) unless you have a very special requirement to use only ports tagged for a specific release, from which the packages for that release where build, in which case you will use the release name, eg. 4_9_0. > wish I'd never mentioned it now... > > -pcf. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040116164657.0da43f32>