Hi, For 5.3 in /usr/share/examples/cvsup, there's: stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-stable standard-supfile : for FreeBSD-current I find this naming rather confusing. Why "stable" refers to STABLE, but "standard" refers to CURRENT ? This causes unnecessary confusion. Why not the following name convention: release-supfile : for FreeBSD-RELEASE stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-STABLE current-supfile : for FreeBSD-CURRENT as default supplied files in /usr/share/examples/cvsup ? At least the naming of files is then very obvious for people who start learning about the cvsup stuff. ------------- Another point, which I miss in the guidelines for using these files: I would advice people to do one of following (whatever appropriate) cvsup -h your.nearest.server.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/release-supfile cvsup -h your.nearest.server.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile cvsup -h your.nearest.server.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/current-supfile instead of copying the files and edit them. Usually one only needs to modify the server's hostname; the -h option can do that in an easier way. Regards, Rob.
Rob said:> > Hi, > > For 5.3 in /usr/share/examples/cvsup, there's: > > stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-stable > standard-supfile : for FreeBSD-current > > I find this naming rather confusing. Why "stable" refers to STABLE, but > "standard" refers to CURRENT ? > > This causes unnecessary confusion. Why not the following name convention: > > release-supfile : for FreeBSD-RELEASE > stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-STABLE > current-supfile : for FreeBSD-CURRENT > > as default supplied files in /usr/share/examples/cvsup ?I agree with you. It has been weird like this ever since 5.x. In the 4.x days they were named with some common sense.
El Lunes, 6 de Diciembre de 2004 08:39, Rob escribi?:> Hi, > > For 5.3 in /usr/share/examples/cvsup, there's: > > stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-stable > standard-supfile : for FreeBSD-current > > I find this naming rather confusing. Why "stable" refers to STABLE, > but "standard" refers to CURRENT ? > > This causes unnecessary confusion. Why not the following name > convention: > > release-supfile : for FreeBSD-RELEASEBetter security-supfile. There is just one release, things like RELENG_5_3 are security branchs, not release branchs.> stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-STABLE > current-supfile : for FreeBSD-CURRENT >-- josemi
Rob wrote:> For 5.3 in /usr/share/examples/cvsup, there's: > > stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-stable > standard-supfile : for FreeBSD-current > > I find this naming rather confusing. Why "stable" refers to STABLE, but > "standard" refers to CURRENT ?Actually, this is not correct. For 5.3-RELEASE and RELENG_5_3, standard-supfile points to RELENG_5_3. For RELENG_5, standard-supfile points to RELENG_5 (despite the incorrect comment at the top saying it gets you -CURRENT -- look at the actual CVS tag used). For -CURRENT, standard-supfile points to "." (HEAD). Thus, standard-supfile keeps you on the branch you are using. I like that the "standard" is to keep you on the branch you are using. This makes sense to me. I think adding a current-supfile would reduce confusion (seems like it's the time of year to discuss this: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2003-December/016071.html). However, the biggest problem is definitely the incorrect comment in standard-supfile... Jon