On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:02:56 -0500, David Taveras wrote > I think everybody should use ports *ALWAYS* if they are following -stable > ... and even though the package could be the same as the port (in > some cases) mixing -release with -stable isnt a good idea. > > What do others think?
I think this is a waste of effort, and two incorrect assumptions. #1: mixing -release/-stable Any -stable patch requires that there be no /usr/lib changes. So unlike -current, one can mix/match -release/-stable as needed. If underlying dependent libraries need to be bumped, then the fix would not be applicable to -stable. To the best of my recollection, when -stable used to extend to the ports tree, this was also the case. And, as far as I know, this is also the case for unofficial -stable ports. #2: using ports "always" A port's purpose is to build a package for install. See ports(7). Unless there has been a bump to the port since -release, "make install" will just rebuild and install exactly the same binary package that would be available from a CD or a nearby mirror, faster and more easily.
