Pete French wrote:
You've already received the right advice about not renaming the INDEX,
but I think it's also worth mentioning that untar'ing a static picture
of the ports tree is of little practical value unless you never plan
to update the base, and you never plan to update any ports on that
machine.
Sorrty, but I do not understand this at all. Surely untarring the ports
file is exactly what the installer does when you install BSD onto a machine?
Why is doing it by hand any different ?
You're much better off starting with downloading the tree with csup,
that way you can maintain it more easily down the road.
Won't running csup on the tree I just untarred work ? I use csup
(and have used cvsup in the past) to update ports trees on machines
I installed from CD, and it works fine. Unless the installer is doing
something other than simply untarring that file I can't see why it isn't
just going to work in the same way.
Yes, it definitely will not work. When files are deleted from the ports
tree after your initial tarball extraction, c[v]sup will not notice that
they are missing (since it does not have a baseline), and will not
remove them. Thus, you will encounter ports with "stale" patches that
no longer apply, or apply but break the compilation, etc.
There is a FAQ about this on the cvsup webpage on www.polstra.com that
explains in detail.
Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
