Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:21 -0500 From: "Jud" <judmarc@fastmail.fm> To: mike@ascendency.net, "'Erik Trulsson'" <ertr1013@student.uu.se>, "'Duane Whitty'" <duane@greenmeadow.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Ports upgrade policy Message-ID: <1142358141.15371.256607782@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0@Mike8500> References: <016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0@Mike8500>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:35:46 -0600, "Mike Loiterman" <mike@ascendency.net> said: > Erik Trulsson <mailto:ertr1013@student.uu.se> wrote: [snip] > >>> Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for > >>> ports? Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get > >>> updated so I'm always running the latest version, but would it be > >>> better to sync both ports and source to RELEASE? [snip] > > Ports *are* tagged for each release, but they are not branched. > > Yes, I know, which is why I asked the question...which is better? Considerations I can think of - (1) Advantage of using -HEAD (-CURRENT): Updates to ports may include security fixes. (2) Disadvantage of using -HEAD (-CURRENT): It is possible, though perhaps not likely, that an updated port would require something your -RELEASE base system lacked. Jud
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1142358141.15371.256607782>