From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 24 13:17:50 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C6616A41A; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:17:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (pointyhat.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::2b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A812F13C442; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:17:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <47482485.7030906@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:17:57 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete French References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: stable@freebsd.org, dougb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:17:50 -0000 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