Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:16:32 -0800 From: clark shishido <clark@ruminary.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: John Kennedy <jk@jk.homeunix.net> Subject: Re: ANy difference between 5.X ports tree and 4.X ports tree ? Message-ID: <20040115091632.GA74072@ruminary.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpisjdmwld.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <E1AgoC5-000Jwa-O6@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> <20040114172740.GA24901@memnoch.jk.homeunix.net> <xzpisjdmwld.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:42:38AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > John Kennedy <jk@jk.homeunix.net> writes: >> There are *lots* of differences between 4.x, 5.x and current given some > > there is no "more or less". there is only one ports tree, and a > freshly updated ports tree on a 4.9 box is exactly the same as a > freshly updated ports tree on a 5.2 box. the actual CVS tree yes, but from a user perspective where some packages may build on 4-STABLE and not on 5-CURRENT there are differences, that's why separate INDEX and INDEX-5 ports listings exist where some ports will build under 4-STABLE but not 5-CURRENT. One behavioral difference which I like is "make package" where *.tgz packages are 4-STABLE and *.tbz packages are 5-CURRENT. And to reiterate the answer to the original question the ports-supfile should be set to "*default release=cvs tag=." if you need the latest changes. The ports tree progresses constantly independent of 4.x or 5.x except during code freezes before a release so use the date tag in your cvusp file if you want a static snapshot of the ports tree. --clark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040115091632.GA74072>