Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:31:50 -0700 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need to build some systems this week. Snapshots? Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030830232836.02e85978@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <200308302249.03680.wes@softweyr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030828202159.0306e7f0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030828133145.0313d860@localhost> <200308280638.AAA19221@lariat.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20030828202159.0306e7f0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 22:49 30/08/2003 -0700, Wes Peters wrote: >Now, if you want to discuss a way for the ports builders to say "Wow, >that seemed like a pretty good one!" when bento builds somewhere north >of 90% of the packages, so they push a button and produce a snapshot, >that's a least a possibility. That will never handle the awful morass >of dependencies on complicated packages like GNOME or KDE applications, >but it MIGHT produce occasional snapshots of some use to some people. Can someone explain to me why it would be necessary to build *snapshots* of the ports tree? Why can't packages just be rebuilt when they change -- the way portupgrade does? I get the feeling that I'm missing something obvious here... Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20030830232836.02e85978>