ANy difference between 5.X ports tree and 4.X ports tree ?

[Tillman Hodgson]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:16:32AM -0800, clark shishido wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:42:38AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> > John Kennedy <jk at 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.

It's because of that that I NFS export two copies of the ports tree, one
for 4.X and one for 5.X. Otherwise the INDEXes were clobbering each
other and /usr/ports/packages was ... interesting. I also have both i386
and sparc64 machines, which is yet another twist on packages.

I'd love to reclaim the disk the disk space by running only a single
ports tree. I'd also love to have the build server (which is -STABLE)
perform the all the INDEX making. Is there a clean way to do this?

-T


-- 
It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another - but which
one? Differences are crucial.
	- Robert Heinlein