Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:21:02 +1000 (EST) From: jason andrade <jason@rtfmconsult.com> To: hubs@freebsd.org Subject: freebsd 5.3-release and some observations Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411171512011.29442@luna.rtfmconsult.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
i've finally finished updating the ISO trees and release trees for the FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE on ftp.au.freebsd.org and working on ftp2.au.freebsd.org - it has taken a while given the original release date. how are other admins going with this ? i'm still working on updating the package trees for all architectures - i think sparc64 and amd64 completed so far. given the length of time for package tree updates i'd be asking if there is any thoughts that could be raised about how better to supply package trees so they aren't `tied' to an architecture and thus appear to be released in 3-5G chunks. i've also been asked if (as other distros are doing) FreeBSD will master a DVD iso image for downloads. i'm a little confused about the -current package trees in ports/$ARCH. alpha has: packages-5.2.1-release pointing at packages-5.2 and no packages-5-current but it does have packages-4-stable amd64 has: packages-5-current AND packages-6-current i386 has packages-4-stable, packages-5-current AND packages-6-current ia64 has packages-5-current sparc64 has packages-5-current is there a uniform standard that can be applied across the various architectures or is that not possible ? how often are the -current package sets being updated ? once upon a time it was a weekly (?) rebuild. should mirrors carry this ? if not, should -current package sets be moved out into a completely separate '-current' server layout ? just as there's a separate freebsd-archive layout/server area. regards, -jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.60.0411171512011.29442>