svn commit: r328593 - head/release/scripts

[Jonathan Anderson]

On 30 Jan 2018, at 14:58, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:

>> Do we even want to include the ports tree on install media? 
>> Extracting
>> ports from some out-of-date tarball doesn't seem to match best 
>> practices
>> for ports and it takes up quite a lot of space.
>> -Nathan
>
> Yes, you want to ship a known working known building and tested ports
> tree with the release, as there is no tag to pull this specific tree
> out of svn.
>
> I suppose it might be ok top stop putting it in the .iso's,
> but this tarball should remain avaliable with the distrubtion
> file sets on the ftp server.

Is a tarball required, or is it really just the ports tree revision 
number that one needs?

Speaking of which, would it be much work for us to annotate binary 
packages with a revision number for the ports tree the package was built 
from? That might make it easier to reproduce package builds, build 
identical-except-for-one-option packages, etc.


Jon
--
Jonathan Anderson
jonathan at FreeBSD.org