Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:17:57 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, dougb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ? Message-ID: <47482485.7030906@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <E1Ivu4i-0008Ur-DW@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> References: <E1Ivu4i-0008Ur-DW@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pete French wrote: >> You've already received the right advice about not renaming the INDEX, >> but I think it's also worth mentioning that untar'ing a static picture >> of the ports tree is of little practical value unless you never plan >> to update the base, and you never plan to update any ports on that >> machine. > > Sorrty, but I do not understand this at all. Surely untarring the ports > file is exactly what the installer does when you install BSD onto a machine? > Why is doing it by hand any different ? > >> You're much better off starting with downloading the tree with csup, >> that way you can maintain it more easily down the road. > > Won't running csup on the tree I just untarred work ? I use csup > (and have used cvsup in the past) to update ports trees on machines > I installed from CD, and it works fine. Unless the installer is doing > something other than simply untarring that file I can't see why it isn't > just going to work in the same way. Yes, it definitely will not work. When files are deleted from the ports tree after your initial tarball extraction, c[v]sup will not notice that they are missing (since it does not have a baseline), and will not remove them. Thus, you will encounter ports with "stale" patches that no longer apply, or apply but break the compilation, etc. There is a FAQ about this on the cvsup webpage on www.polstra.com that explains in detail. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47482485.7030906>