Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:56:57 +0000 From: "b.f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> Cc: mexas@bristol.ac.uk, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how to move 9.1 ports to HEAD? Message-ID: <CAGFTUwNcM6sBuDcbXpMMdM4cvHRM640MqOG8L1bz--JjDm%2BdYQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2B7WWSfF=Vz3zsS-Z0wkPCSvVy0TPJOwFDSHNzTd3Pb4bQaUaw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201302082017.r18KHk7k036221@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <CA%2B7WWSde%2BgbpXnGTSpe-Jx6fErYbtN=s5oSdr1KqoD0=STnUxg@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2B7WWSfF=Vz3zsS-Z0wkPCSvVy0TPJOwFDSHNzTd3Pb4bQaUaw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/8/13, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> >> wrote: >>> From bf1783@googlemail.com Fri Feb 8 17:33:09 2013 >>> >>> > > I don't think it's true. >>> > > While still on 9.1 ports, the latest >>> > > entry in UPDATING was (well I lost it now) >>> > > about NOV-2012. I believe the revision was >>> > > also substantially lower. >>> > > >>> > > AS soon as I switched to head, >>> > > the latest entry in UPDATING is from >>> > > 6-FEB-2013 and the revision is 311942. >>> > > >>> > > Or maybe I misunderstood you? >>> > >>> > You do. :-) >>> > The local _subversion repository_ (I know I'm using >>> incorrent >>> > terminology) has a revision number: r######. Which is the >>> same >>> > across different versions of FreeBSD. >>> > The individual ports _maintained within that >>> repository_ have >>> > their individual ports numbers (e.g. libreoffice-3.6.5) ... >>> which >>> > also does not vary with the FreeBSD release. One can have >>> > libreoffice-3.6.5 and libreoffice 3.5.4 - but those are two >>> separate >>> > ports and both work (or should) on 8.3, 9.1, and -CURRENT. If >>> a >>> > port has a minimum (or maximum) release of the OS it supports, >>> there >>> > a mechanism for figuring that out and DTRT. >>> > >>> > Or did I misunderstand you? >>> >>> Yes, it is now branched, and he was probably using the equivalent >>> of: >>> >>> http://svnweb.FreeBSD.org/ports/branches/RELENG_9_1_0/ >>> >>> rather than >>> >>> http://svnweb.FreeBSD.org/ports/head/ >>> >>> By the way, Anton, you may wish to use https:// rather than >>> svn:// -- >>> slightly less efficient, but more secure. >>> >>> yes, got it, cool! >>> >>> root@zzz:/root # svn info /usr/ports/ >>> Path: /usr/ports >>> Working Copy Root Path: /usr/ports >>> URL: https://svn0.us-east.freebsd.org/ports/head >>> Repository Root: https://svn0.us-east.freebsd.org/ports >>> Repository UUID: 35697150-7ecd-e111-bb59-0022644237b5 >>> Revision: 311950 >>> Node Kind: directory >>> Schedule: normal >>> Last Changed Author: eadler >>> Last Changed Rev: 311950 >>> Last Changed Date: 2013-02-08 19:18:40 +0000 (Fri, 08 Feb 2013) >>> >>> root@zzz:/root # >>> >>> Does svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/head >>> support https too? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Anton >>> >>> >> >> Just to repeat what others have tried to tell you. The ports tree is >> NOT branched. The branches/RELENG_9_1_0 thing is a "tag" in subversion >> terminology, a read only-snapshot of head from the time the release >> was made that will never be updated. >> >> -Kimmo > > Actually I'm talking slightly rubbish here, the tags are in the tags/* > part of the repository, for example > http://svn.freebsd.org/ports/tags/RELEASE_9_1_0. The > branches/RELENG_9_1_0 thing is a proper branch but since there's no > announcement of what it should used for I would guess it's someone's > test branch. Yes, it's a branch -- or a copy, I suppose, in subversion terms. I believe it was used to generate the package set for the 9.1 release. There probably won't be any future changes to it, but people can use it, as Anton apparently did. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGFTUwNcM6sBuDcbXpMMdM4cvHRM640MqOG8L1bz--JjDm%2BdYQ>