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ports from some out-of-date tarball doesn't seem to match best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
jonat...@freebsd.org
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
