Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:59:49 +0000 From: Pete French <petefrench@keithprowse.com> To: itetcu@apropo.ro, petefrench@keithprowse.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports sup tag (was: Re: ) Message-ID: <E1AhVRt-000BRD-6o@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040116164657.0da43f32@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There is no such a thing as "4.9 ports tree" or "5.2 ports tree". Some Sigh.. to make it *very* clear "4.9 ports tree" = "the ports tree that was on the 4.9 RELEASE CD" "5.2 ports tree" = "the ports tree that was on the 5.2 RELEASE CD" > release, from which the packages for that release where build, in which > case you will use the release name, eg. 4_9_0. Which is what I *do* want. I am cvsupping anumber of machines. I am doing this on different days, but I want to end up with the same ports. If I just use '.' then I cant guarantee this, as ports change all the time. If I use one of the tags then I know I am getting the same set of ports. I also know that as that set of ports was frozen for a release then they are guaranteed to work and build together. I hav (occasionally) used the '.' tag and got a set of ports that didnt quite build togther. I dont see why people have a conceptual problem with this. To me its the obvious way to ensure that you are always going to get the same set of ports on a machine, no matter how far into the future from the -RELEASE you happen to update it. -pcf.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1AhVRt-000BRD-6o>