ANy difference between 5.X ports tree and 4.X ports tree ?
kris at obsecurity.org
Thu Jan 15 07:24:51 PST 2004
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:18:44AM -0600, Tillman Hodgson wrote:
> 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.
If built appropriately, the INDEXes do not clobber each other (5.x
uses INDEX-5). If you want to build a 5.x INDEX on a 4.x machine,
you'll need to set OSVERSION first so that dependencies come out
correctly (and this will automatically use INDEX-5).
You can also override the INDEX file name, package directory, and
about 1000 other settings by using the appropriate environment
variables: see bsd.port.mk for the available variables.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20040115/26884f95/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-stable