Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:42:09 +0200 From: Erik Norgaard <norgaard@locolomo.org> To: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Word processor for 6.1 Message-ID: <44FD8CC1.4000808@locolomo.org> In-Reply-To: <200609051408.30090.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <10609040708.AA17675@pluto.rain.com> <10609042328.AA20234@pluto.rain.com> <44FD36C4.7090509@locolomo.org> <200609051408.30090.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: > On Tuesday 05 September 2006 09:35, Erik Norgaard wrote: > >> In the standard-supfile for the base system you'd specify RELENG_6 which >> means you'll get head of -STABLE, or if you are conservative RELENG_6_1 >> which means that you'll just get security patches to the 6.1 release. > > I do wish people wouldn't give inexperienced users the impresssion that > running 6-stable (RELENG_6 ) is the norm - this is a development branch. I don't try to give any indication of what is the norm. I mention two options, none of which would mean a switch onto the -CURRENT branch which was the principal concern in OP. Further, the OP was really concerned with ports, and I do make an effort both to explain how stay on a particular branch and why the tagging is on the ports collection is not the same as the base system - hence the shift -RELEASE/-STABLE/-CURRENT is not a big difference. I personally run RELENG_6_1 on my servers and RELENG_6 on my laptops, while using HEAD of the ports collection on both - and everything is quite /STABLE/ :) I'd recommend you follow the norm that works for you, and define one if it has yet to be defined. Cheers, Erik -- Ph: +34.666334818 web: http://www.locolomo.org X.509 Certificate: http://www.locolomo.org/crt/8D03551FFCE04F0C.crt Key ID: 69:79:B8:2C:E3:8F:E7:BE:5D:C3:C3:B1:74:62:B8:3F:9F:1F:69:B9
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44FD8CC1.4000808>