Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 19:39:27 +0900 From: Rob <spamrefuse@yahoo.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ? Message-ID: <41909E5F.7020300@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20041109103151.40F326147@hoppel.local> References: <20041109103151.40F326147@hoppel.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Björn König wrote: > Rob wrote: > > >>[...] >>both have >> >> *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_5 >> >>although the first one claims to download CURRENT. >> >>And, eh, why is the filename "standard-supfile" and >>why not the more obvious "current-supfile" ? > > > It only claims, but it doesn't bring you -CURRENT. > That's the reason why it should not be renamed. > The standard-supfile contains the standard tag of your release > to keep it up to date. Maybe someone will change this sentence > in standard-supfile to 'This file contains all of the "CVSup > collections" that make up the FreeBSD-stable source tree.' soon. If so, then why do we have a standard-supfile and a stable-supfile doing the same thing? If both bring you -STABLE, one of the two seems to be redundant to me and having two sup files doing the same only causes confusion. R.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41909E5F.7020300>