Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:37:06 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: Andy Greenwood <greenwood.andy@gmail.com> Cc: Si Thu <sithu@rareplay.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD questions Message-ID: <47386512.6080606@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <47384AF7.4090106@gmail.com> References: <000f01c82212$c1b9e3c0$452dab40$@com> <47332EBE.3000900@gmail.com> <000a01c822b6$2f8ed060$8eac7120$@com> <47384AF7.4090106@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andy Greenwood wrote: > If you want the newer versions of software from the ports tree, don't > limit your results by the tag. Basically, you're saying (IIRC) "I want > the version of the port that was included with this release" instead > of "I want the most recent version of this port." the release versions > of the ports will only be updated for bug fixes, etc. Unless something has changed recently, this is not correct. The release versions of the ports are *never* updated for anything; not security fixes, not features, nothing. The ports tree is not like, say, Fedora Linux rpms. What you say is true of the *base* system, but not true for ports. Technically, the ports tree is not branched, because it's a) too much of a maintenance burden and b) apparently CVS is likely to struggle, which I can believe. The ports tree is *tagged* (not branched) when the release ISOs are made, and those tags are never moved. For cv(s)uping ports there are only two reasonable tags, as far as I know: "." which means the latest ports tree or a date: when you desperately need to get back to the ports tree you had say a week ago because it worked and your current one doesn't and you are desperate. --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47386512.6080606>