From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 15 07:24:51 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 5AC9716A4CE for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-67-119-53-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [67.119.53.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9BD43D62 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:24:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 301B766C78; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:24:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:24:48 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Tillman Hodgson Message-ID: <20040115152447.GB12857@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040114172740.GA24901@memnoch.jk.homeunix.net> <20040115091632.GA74072@ruminary.org> <20040115131844.GL415@seekingfire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040115131844.GL415@seekingfire.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 15:24:51 -0000 --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:18:44AM -0600, Tillman Hodgson wrote: > 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 > > >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > One behavioral difference which I like is "make package" where > > *.tgz packages are 4-STABLE and *.tbz packages are 5-CURRENT. >=20 > 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. If built appropriately, the INDEXes do not clobber each other (5.x uses INDEX-5). If you want to build a 5.x INDEX on a 4.x machine, you'll need to set OSVERSION first so that dependencies come out correctly (and this will automatically use INDEX-5). You can also override the INDEX file name, package directory, and about 1000 other settings by using the appropriate environment variables: see bsd.port.mk for the available variables. Kris --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFABrC/Wry0BWjoQKURAmhlAJ0Yh9ucYGotNRZmttiZYTeJxXDEFACgyle0 orw1PaBc3oNkKOZO0bzxKzc= =T00u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2--