From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 15 05:18:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA3E16A4CE for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:18:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.seekingfire.com (coyote.seekingfire.com [24.72.10.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A1443D53 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:18:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tillman@seekingfire.com) Received: by mail.seekingfire.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B2E14196; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:18:44 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:18:44 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040115131844.GL415@seekingfire.com> References: <20040114172740.GA24901@memnoch.jk.homeunix.net> <20040115091632.GA74072@ruminary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040115091632.GA74072@ruminary.org> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-GPG-Key-ID: 828AFC7B X-GPG-Fingerprint: 5584 14BA C9EB 1524 0E68 F543 0F0A 7FBC 828A FC7B X-GPG-Key: http://www.seekingfire.com/gpg_key.asc X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Subject: Re: ANy difference between 5.X ports tree and 4.X ports tree ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:18:47 -0000 On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:16:32AM -0800, clark shishido wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:42:38AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > John Kennedy writes: > >> There are *lots* of differences between 4.x, 5.x and current given some > > > > there is no "more or less". there is only one ports tree, and a > > freshly updated ports tree on a 4.9 box is exactly the same as a > > freshly updated ports tree on a 5.2 box. > > the actual CVS tree yes, but from a user perspective where some > packages may build on 4-STABLE and not on 5-CURRENT there are > differences, that's why separate INDEX and INDEX-5 ports listings > exist where some ports will build under 4-STABLE but not 5-CURRENT. > > One behavioral difference which I like is "make package" where > *.tgz packages are 4-STABLE and *.tbz packages are 5-CURRENT. It's because of that that I NFS export two copies of the ports tree, one for 4.X and one for 5.X. Otherwise the INDEXes were clobbering each other and /usr/ports/packages was ... interesting. I also have both i386 and sparc64 machines, which is yet another twist on packages. I'd love to reclaim the disk the disk space by running only a single ports tree. I'd also love to have the build server (which is -STABLE) perform the all the INDEX making. Is there a clean way to do this? -T -- It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another - but which one? Differences are crucial. - Robert Heinlein