On 1 Jun 2008, at 10:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 May 2008 at 18:50, "Edd Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Uwe Dippel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Edd Barrett wrote:
Can you build packges for me then :P
Sure. But I said what I require: an automagic update of my ports
tree, one
way or another.
really? If diffs really are not enought I will converse with jj@ and
see if we can get a CVS tree set up with my other package building
machines. Although I dont see a big issue with downloading the
patches
manually, as this is the way it is done with -current. No patches are
brought into CVS until tested properly.
It is no problem for me to host a cvs tree. We already have cvs for
other things. As long as my trusty machine holds up :-)
And for some time I'd been meaning to roll a 'stable-ports.tar.gz'
with
the updated pieces in place. That becomes a cinch when stuff is
already
in a ports tree structure in cvs...
As a sysadmin I understand the need for an easier way to update.
However given that I was updating ports based only on security updates
and major bugfixes I assumed everyone would not need every port I
had an
update for. (My own use of it is is pretty minimal, actually. I only
need a fraction of what's up there.)
I never created a cvs tree before because the idea was that the diffs
could get tested and OK'd by a developer and hopefully end up in
OpenBSD's tree. It didn't make sense to create another tree, since it
really didn't help me make the diffs and since it would become
obsolete
eventually anyway.
Having another cvs tree probably won't help a great deal. What needs
to be done by the community is to test the patches and report back on
stable fixes posted to the list. These need to be rolled into
OpenBSD's tree to be effective because only then can we cater for the
"I only want to run one tool" users.
Ian McWilliam
