ports sup tag (was: Re: )

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:59:49 +0000
Pete French <petefrench at keithprowse.com> wrote:

> > There is no such a thing as "4.9 ports tree"  or "5.2 ports tree". Some
> 
> Sigh.. to make it *very* clear
> 
> "4.9 ports tree" = "the ports tree that was on the 4.9 RELEASE CD"
> "5.2 ports tree" = "the ports tree that was on the 5.2 RELEASE CD"
> 
> > release, from which the packages for that release where build, in which
> > case you will use the release name, eg. 4_9_0.
> 
> Which is what I *do* want.
> 
> I am cvsupping anumber of machines. I am doing this on different days, but I
> want to end up with the same ports. If I just use '.' then I cant guarantee
> this, as ports change all the time. If I use one of the tags then I know
> I am getting the same set of ports. I also know that as that set of ports
> was frozen for a release then they are guaranteed to work and build together.
> I hav (occasionally) used the '.' tag and got a set of ports that didnt quite
> build togther.

You could also use date= in the cvsup file to get a more recent version
of the tree that you you know it will build the ports you use.
 
> I dont see why people have a conceptual problem with this. 

> To me its the
> obvious way to ensure that you are always going to get the same set of ports
> on a machine, no matter how far into the future from the -RELEASE you
> happen to update it.

If it works don't fix it ? :)

Reasons:
- bugs discovered and corrected
- ports "unbroken" from the -RELEASE time
- updates


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user