Rob wrote: > Björn König wrote: >> Rob wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> both have >>> >>> *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_5 >>> >>> although the first one claims to download CURRENT. >>> >>> And, eh, why is the filename "standard-supfile" and >>> why not the more obvious "current-supfile" ? >> >> It only claims, but it doesn't bring you -CURRENT. >> That's the reason why it should not be renamed. >> The standard-supfile contains the standard tag of your release >> to keep it up to date. Maybe someone will change this sentence >> in standard-supfile to 'This file contains all of the "CVSup >> collections" that make up the FreeBSD-stable source tree.' soon. > > If so, then why do we have a standard-supfile and a stable-supfile doing > the same thing? If both bring you -STABLE, one of the two seems to be > redundant to me and having two sup files doing the same only causes > confusion.
On 4.X they were different; stable-supfile got you RELENG_4 but standard_supfile got you RELENG_4_X. This same scheme was used for 5.0, but as of 5.1 it was not carried over. I brought this up on current@ back in December: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2003-December/thread.html#15935 The consensus was that we needed an example file for -CURRENT (say, current-supfile) just like stable-supfile. The behavior of standard-supfile would then be designed to keep you tracking the most appropriate branch (HEAD if using -CURRENT, RELENG_X if using -STABLE, RELENG_X_Y is using a release). My thoughts and a patch to make this happen: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2003-December/016071.html Jon _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
