ports sup tag (was: Re: )

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:51:57 +0200 (EET)
Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry at atlantis.dp.ua> wrote:

> 
> Hello!
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:31:51 +0000
> > Pete French <petefrench at keithprowse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > None. But if you want the snap-shot of 5.2R's ports why cvsup ? The
> > > > cvsup will get you nothing.
> > >
> > > That rather depends on what you are cvsupping from. I had 4.9 ports tree,
> > > I wanted 5.2 ports tree. I thought cvs might be a reasonable way to
> > > get it!
> >
> > There is no such a thing as "4.9 ports tree"  or "5.2 ports tree". Some
> 
>  I say "5.2 ports tree" when I want to get ports tree which come with
> 5.2-RELEASE distribution. Such a thing definitely exists. Period.

OK, now I understand what you mean and you are right indeed.

> > The only tag for cvsup-ping ports should be HEAD (.) unless you have a
> 
>  Should != must.

True.


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user