Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:05:44 -0500 From: "Bob Johnson" <fbsdlists@gmail.com> To: mike@ascendency.net Cc: bobo1001@mailtest2.eng.ufl.edu, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports upgrade policy Message-ID: <54db43990603140705k5d6d2201h3d47991671674be8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0@Mike8500> References: <20060314082151.GA35446@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <016f01c64774$95c54630$0501a8c0@Mike8500>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/14/06, Mike Loiterman <mike@ascendency.net> wrote: > Erik Trulsson <mailto:ertr1013@student.uu.se> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:18:13AM -0400, Duane Whitty wrote: > >> Mike Loiterman wrote: > >>> 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? > >>> > >> 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? As I understand it, release tagsare static. If you specify a release tag, you get the ports as they were at the time of that release.=20 Ports don't branch with releases, so if you want updated ports, you use "tag=3D." - Bob
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54db43990603140705k5d6d2201h3d47991671674be8>