Are there STABLE/CURRENT/RELEASE tags for ports?
doublef at tele-kom.ru
Fri Jun 13 02:36:30 PDT 2003
About CTM vs cvsup: CTM by ftp is faster for my dial-up, so I use it. I
don't really mind storing extra 20M on my disk compared to cvs-downing
and upping again...
About disk space: for me an extra "current" /usr/local takes 3G. It
isn't an awful lot, and it may save my ass someday...
> Mark Miller writes:
> > On a more pragmatic note, are there any particular reasons that
> > port maintainers can't use the -STABLE tag for their updates? It
> > seems like a general guideline of "stable lags current by X
> > weeks" might help things tremendously.
In fact, from this point of view all ports should be considered "stable"
except "-devel" ones which are current. It's just that "stable" isn't.
If you just like the "-STABLE" tag - that's not a problem;)
About "stable lags current by X weeks": what you are asking for is
probably another ports tree. There were such statements even here on
questions at . Everyone wants to build something rock solid and noone (me
included) seems to have an idea of how to do it. If you can tell why
your tree will be better, noone will be against...
> I've never put together a port, but mu understanding is that
> authors have two ways to do this, should they need to:
> set certain variables in the Makefile
> test (IFDEF/IFNDEF) in the code itself
> My experience: _very_ few ports need this; they are written to
> not care what version they're on.
> Robert Huff
You might be misunderstanding the question. The update of the OS itself
doesn't harm ports (in my humble experience). FreeBSD doesn't break
ports, ports break ports (mostly by asynchrounous behavior). I wish I
could tell you how to change the structure to remedy the situation - but
I have no idea except for what I've already told you.
Indeed this should be brought to ports at .
More information about the freebsd-questions