standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Rob
Hi, 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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Bjrn Knig
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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Rob
Bjrn Knig 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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Bjrn Knig
Rob wrote: 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. Maybe you're right. There is a kind of redundancy now, but

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Björn König
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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Jon Noack
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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Ken Smith
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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Ceri Davies
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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Jon Noack
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

Re: standard-supfile = stable-supfile with 5.3 ?

2004-11-09 Thread Ken Smith
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +, Ceri Davies wrote: stable-supfile is correct then; we just need to correct the README. How about this patch for src/share/examples/cvsup/README on RELENG_5 (will become FreeBSD 5.4): Index: README