Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:05:05 +0200 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool Message-ID: <54072011.7030800@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <47F4AAAA-2D88-4F03-8602-880C4B129305@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> References: <20140901195520.GB77917@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <54050D07.4010404@sorbs.net> <CAOFF%2BZ1MOr9-rYbwHYWqBKjMvRPwUnew4jThEoJ_WkoTmwyNsQ@mail.gmail.com> <540522A3.9050506@sorbs.net> <54052891.5000104@my.hennepintech.edu> <54052DFA.4030808@freebsd.org> <54053372.6020009@my.hennepintech.edu> <5405890F.8080804@freebsd.org> <CAF-3MvNBWSEWF-HarwF0xcXQgo=7-dO%2BtvLMO1maELPY0RVhQQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140902125256.Horde.uv31ztwymThxUZ-OYPQoBw1@webmail.df.eu> <5405AE54.60809@sorbs.net> <1D2B4A91-E76C-43A0-BE75-D926357EF1AF@gmail.com> <5405E4F5.4090902@sorbs.net> <5406BD65.705@digsys.bg> <5406ED34.7090301@sorbs.net> <5406F00C.6090504@digsys.bg> <C4EC1A3A-6EB1-4EE1-ACEA-12C8E203991C@cs.huji.ac.il> <358B9E99-5E02-47BA-9E30-045986150966@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <540711FF.3050409@sorbs.net> <47F4AAAA-2D88-4F03-8602-880C4B129305@gromit.dlib.vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Mather wrote: > As I pointed out, until fairly recently there was no such thing as a > "stable" release of the ports tree (it's traditionally been a rolling > release model, like -CURRENT). My question was to those who have been > using the "stable" branches: does it make managing ports updates > easier, or does it just concentrate all the problems into the > transition period between one quarterly branch to another? I've been > contemplating switching to the quarterly branches for production > machines, so would appreciate feedback. > >From what I hear getting things into the quarterly branches is neither automatic nor pain free so many don't do it. > Portsnap doesn't have any concept of tracking branches, so far as I > know. It would be nice to have that feature now that there are the > "stable" ports branches. > > I guess if you want to track "release" via portsnap the answer is not > to run portsnap. :-) > > (A "release" ports tree never changes, so why would you need portsnap > to track its changes, unless you're talking about updating ports from > one -RELEASE to another, like freebsd-update does for the rest of the > OS?) > Not quite - portsnap pulls security patches - it just doesn't upgrade... Also freebsd-update won't switch you to a 'stable' from 'release' etc... I think portsnap should provide 'stable' - tested, known working, security patched... and if you want bleeding edge use subversion, because you're likely to know (and accept) the consequences of such an action.... not to mention at that point you can rollback or if you are a new user that doesn't really know but followed some 'helpful' website/blog you can just 'rm -r /usr/ports && portsnap fetch extract' to get back to stability. > The designated tool for tracking branches is now Subversion. I believe > that's why they added svnlite in 10.x. > I don't have any 10.x machines yet (and might never have.) -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54072011.7030800>