Re: How to update ports to stable not to current

From: Jason Bourne (j_bourne_treadstone_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/29/05 

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:43:14 -0400

nntp wrote:

[snip]
>
> There are 5.4-release and 5-stable. But I found many are broken in
> 5-stable, while 5.4-release seems ok. Is there a way to update the ports
> to do 5.4-release instead of stable?

Greetings:

   Yes - actually you do this; see other post. But I believe there may be a
little confusion here. The ports being "current" is not exactly the same
thing as a RELENG for some branch of the operating system. The most
generally accepted tag for tracking ports is tag=. so the tree will the
most up to date (for the ports-all collection). Of course, using this same
tag with the "src-all" collection will give you -current/Head as far as the
operating system source is concerned. But remember this is userland we're
talking about and the purpose here is to keep userland dependencies aligned
with each other. When you build a port it may depend on other port(s)
and/or libraries. By using the freshest ports tree you are getting the best
chance for all the userland/library dependencies to be satisfied.

   Sorry I'm not really the best at explaining things, just wanted to try to
get you to see that keeping the ports tree up to date is not the same thing
as tracking the OS source code. Generally speaking you'll have better
results if you keep the ports tree fresh.

-Jason
 

Relevant Pages

  • Re: cvsup tag for ports
    ... As I've studied the FreeBSD Handbook as well as the man pages for this, it's still not clear to me which tag I should use for a production server. ... For my sources I always use the security branch for the release we are using so that they stay stable and also plug most of the security issues as they arise and so the sources tag is always RELENG_6_2. ... On one hand it makes sense to track that branch for ports because that's where fixes would go for applications as they find them, but I'm not convinced this is the best thing for a production server and wonder if I should also use the security branch for the ports. ... Neither the ports tree nor the docs tree is branched. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: cvsup ports question Freebsd 5.2
    ... > I have build the ports tree using the default ports-sup file tag ... > I want to understand why my ports tree is wiped off when i change the tag ... # If you add any of the ports or doc collections to this file, ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: cvsup ports question Freebsd 5.2
    ... > I have build the ports tree using the default ports-sup file tag ... > I want to understand why my ports tree is wiped off when i change the ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Can i make a CD of the Ports Collection
    ... use whether cvsup or method above to get a recent ports ... > You can also reinstall the ports tree from the iso image. ... The answer is that this cannot be avoided, since the source files of the ... If you have a fast connection somewhere that can download these source ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Questions about updating...
    ... Since ssh is part of the base install .. ... >>the system tree and the ports tree? ... When you build from a port, it essentially builds the package ...
    (freebsd-questions)