[solved]: to move csup 90 to subversion 91rc

Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-local at be-well.ilk.org
Mon Sep 3 19:39:54 UTC 2012

Darrel <levitch at iglou.com> writes:

>>>> For ports would it be better to match -fbsd91, like this:
>>>> svn co http://svn.freebsd.org/ports/releng/9.1 ports
>> On 03/09/2012 17:29, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>>> I'm not sure whether there's any equivalent to tracking RELENG_9 (as
>>> opposed to tracking RELENG_9_1) under the branching scheme being used
>>> with subversion.
>> stable/9 is the SVN equivalent of RELENG_9
> Could I then run:
> svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/ports/releng/[ 91 9.1] /usr/ports/
> or | and
> svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/ports/stable/9 /usr/ports/ ?


> Since in the past several years I installed minimal fbsd and then used
> portsnap for ports, so I was not aware that -head was the only option
> for ports- is that what Lowell was pointing out?

Yes. There is never any branching in the ports tree. The latest (i.e.,
head) version is, at any given time, expected to work for all (then)
supported versions of the base system.

This is not a change -- this has always been the case, and the current
(cvsup-centric) text in the Handbook describes it explicitly.

> It turns out that mergemaster would have been alright in my case, due
> to .mergemasterrc, I can not recall why this was selected, comments
> are welcomed:
> # cat .mergemasterrc

Equivalent to -F.

> PRESERVE_FILES_DIR=/var/tmp/mergemaster/preserved-files-`date +%y%m%d-%H%M%S`

A reasonable set of defaults, although I prefer a little more human
interaction on major changes. Why it "would have been alright(sic)" in
your case isn't clear, because you don't describe the alternative, but
the manual for mergemaster(8) almost certainly has the answer.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list