svn commit: r328593 - head/release/scripts

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> 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 ports from some out-of-date tarball doesn't seem to match best practices 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.

You may consider it "out of date" I consider it "known to build"
and "probably working binaries".


> On 01/30/18 08:34, Steve Wills wrote:
> > Author: swills (ports committer)
> > Date: Tue Jan 30 16:34:56 2018
> > New Revision: 328593
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/328593
> >
> > Log:
> >    Change installer default to not install ports tree
> >    
> >    Reviewed by:	gjb, dteske, allanjude, bdrewery, mat
> >    Approved by:	gjb
> >    Differential Revision:	https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14064
> >
> > Modified:
> >    head/release/scripts/make-manifest.sh
> >
> > Modified: head/release/scripts/make-manifest.sh
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- head/release/scripts/make-manifest.sh	Tue Jan 30 16:24:15 2018	(r328592)
> > +++ head/release/scripts/make-manifest.sh	Tue Jan 30 16:34:56 2018	(r328593)
> > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ desc_tests="${tests}"
> >   
> >   default_doc=off
> >   default_src=off
> > +default_ports=off
> >   default_tests=off
> >   default_base_dbg=off
> >   default_lib32_dbg=off
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org