Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:21:51 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Duane Whitty <duane@greenmeadow.ca> Cc: mike@ascendency.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports upgrade policy Message-ID: <20060314082151.GA35446@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <44167C45.40005@greenmeadow.ca> References: <015601c6473e$36e5c490$0501a8c0@Mike8500> <44167C45.40005@greenmeadow.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:18:13AM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: > Mike Loiterman wrote: > >This is my supfile: > > > >*default host=cvsup1.FreeBSD.org > >*default base=/usr > >*default prefix=/usr > >*default release=cvs > >*default tag=RELENG_6_0 > >*default delete use-rel-suffix > > > >src-all > > > >*default tag=. > >ports-all > >doc-all > > > >I have been using it like this for years, obviously changing to the latest > >release tag. I haven't had problem and I'm not having problems, but my > >question is this: > > > >Is it advisable to sync my source to RELEASE, but to CURRENT for ports? > >Typically, I upgade my ports a few days after they get updated so I'm > >always > >running the latest version, but would it be better to sync both ports and > >source to RELEASE? > > > Hi Mike, > > It would be nice I guess if ports were tagged like src but they are not. > Basically HEAD is all there is vis-a-vis tags. You can specify a > specific date however. Ports *are* tagged for each release, but they are not branched. > > Duane > >Obviously, it depends, somewhat, on personal choice, but in terms of > >stablity and "correctness" which is better? > > -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060314082151.GA35446>