Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:35:46 -0600 From: "Mike Loiterman" <mike@ascendency.net> To: "'Erik Trulsson'" <ertr1013@student.uu.se>, "'Duane Whitty'" <duane@greenmeadow.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Ports upgrade policy Message-ID: <016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0@Mike8500> In-Reply-To: <20060314082151.GA35446@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Erik Trulsson <mailto:ertr1013@student.uu.se> wrote: > 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. Yes, I know, which is why I asked the question...which is better? ------------------------------ Mike Loiterman grantADLER Tel: 630-302-4944 Fax: 773-442-0992 Email: mike@ascendency.net PGP Key: 0xD1B9D18E
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0>