CVS removal from the base

[Roman Kurakin]

Max Khon wrote:
> Rik,
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Roman Kurakin <rik at inse.ru> wrote:
>
>   
>>> The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
>>> matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
>>>
>>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
>>> majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it must be the
>>> default and/or in the base" rather than seeing ports as part of the
>>> overall operating SYSTEM.
>>>
>>>       
>> You are right in general, except one small factor. We are talking about
>> bootstrap.
>> CVS is used by many as the one of the ways to get the sources to the freshly
>> installed system to recompile to the last available source. It will become
>> inconvenient
>> to do it through the process of installing some ports for that. Especially
>> if corresponding
>> ports would require some other ports as dependences.
>>     
> Do you really use CVS and not cvsup/csup? CVS != csup.
>   
I use ctm/csup to get(update) CVS source tree and cvs to checkout the 
exact version I need.
Having cvs tree locally it is more convenient to keep one central repo 
for updating local
systems based on different branches and to roll back a little bit for 
example with the ports
tree in case I can't upgrade all needed ports to "current" for some 
reasons and got some
problems with dependences.

I can have what ever development system on the development machine, but 
unlikely I'll
have one on all production systems by default since of additional 
potentially buggy
packages, additional dependences, additional upgrade problems etc.

rik
> Max
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>