svn commit: r328593 - head/release/scripts
Jonathan Anderson
jonathan at FreeBSD.org
Thu Feb 1 01:12:51 UTC 2018
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 ports from some out-of-date tarball doesn't seem to match best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
More information about the svn-src-head
mailing list