Ceri Davies wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:34:55AM -0500, Ken Smith wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 05:15:13PM +0900, Rob wrote: >>> The two files >>> >>> /usr/src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile >>> /usr/src/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile >>> >>> 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" ? >> >> I'm not sure I understand. How was your system brought up to the >> new release - was it a CD install or cvsup-ed? If cvsup-ed what did >> you use as the tag during the cvsup? >> >> I'm seeing what you expect both in CVS and on a system installed from >> CD: >> >> harlow 1 % cd /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ >> harlow 2 % grep "default release" standard-supfile stable-supfile >> standard-supfile:*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_5_3 >> stable-supfile:*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_5 >> harlow 3 % uname -a >> FreeBSD harlow.cse.buffalo.edu 5.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE #3: Thu >> Nov 4 16:14:06 EST 2004 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 >> harlow 4 % >> >> The standard-supfile is meant for people who want to track the release >> branch as Errata/Security updates get applied to it. > > Hmm. share/examples/cvsup/README says: > > To maintain the sources for the FreeBSD-current release, use: > > standard-supfile Main source tree > > ports-supfile Ports collection > > To maintain the sources for the FreeBSD-stable release, use: > > stable-supfile Main source tree > > This implies that standard-supfile should be changed to track -HEAD. > It does make sense that it should track RELENG_X_Y (RELENG_5_3 in this > case) though. > >> The stable-supfile >> is meant for people who want to track the *development* branch, which >> is not recommended for people who do not have the time to watch over >> the freebsd-stable mailing list (on occasion mistakes do happen in the >> development branch and other development work can at times cause >> glitches people need to be aware of). > > stable-supfile is correct then; we just need to correct the README.
The way I read the "Main source tree" comments (for both standard- and stable-) is that those supfiles update "src" (and not "ports", "doc", "www", etc.). In my proposal for a current-supfile I updated the README to correct the description of standard-supfile (although perhaps it would be best to fill in "this branch" with RELENG_5_3 or some such): 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]"
