freebsd stable - Nov 2007 - Is it O.K. to use the 7.0 ports tree on 6.3 ?

I have a set of machines running 7.0 and a set running 6.3 which I
would like to use the same ports on. I was under the impression that
there was only one ports tree, so is it safe to simply untar the
ports.tgz file from 7.0 on the 6.3 machines, rename INDEX-7 to INDEX-6
and install away, or are there more subtle differences to tran the unwary ?

cheers,

-pcf.

Pete French wrote:
> I have a set of machines running 7.0 and a set running 6.3 which I
> would like to use the same ports on. I was under the impression that
> there was only one ports tree, so is it safe to simply untar the
> ports.tgz file from 7.0 on the 6.3 machines, rename INDEX-7 to INDEX-6
> and install away, or are there more subtle differences to tran the unwary ?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> -pcf.
I think that they are the same, except INDEX-6 and INDEX-7 differ.  So 
do your tar-untaring, and then do make fetchindex on the 6.3 machine(s).

On Friday 23 November 2007, Pete French wrote:
> is it safe to simply untar the ports.tgz file from 7.0 on the 6.3
> machines, rename INDEX-7 to INDEX-6 and install away, or are there
> more subtle differences to tran the unwary ?
The dependencies can vary depending on OS release, so it's not
guaranteed to work.  Use 'make fetchindex' after you install to
get the latest snapshot for 6-STABLE.

mcl

Pete French wrote:
> I have a set of machines running 7.0 and a set running 6.3 which I
> would like to use the same ports on. I was under the impression that
> there was only one ports tree, so is it safe to simply untar the
> ports.tgz file from 7.0 on the 6.3 machines, rename INDEX-7 to INDEX-6
> and install away, or are there more subtle differences to tran the unwary ?
You've already received the right advice about not renaming the INDEX,
but I think it's also worth mentioning that untar'ing a static picture
of the ports tree is of little practical value unless you never plan
to update the base, and you never plan to update any ports on that
machine.

You're much better off starting with downloading the tree with csup,
that way you can maintain it more easily down the road.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection

Pete French wrote:
>> Yes, it definitely will not work.  When files are deleted from the
ports
>> tree after your initial tarball extraction, c[v]sup will not notice
that
>> they are missing (since it does not have a baseline), and will not 
>> remove them.  Thus, you will encounter ports with "stale"
patches that
>> no longer apply, or apply but break the compilation, etc.
> 
> Ahhh, right. So preseuably an install off the CD does something to
> give csup a baseline which I am missing (or is csupping the ports on
> a tree installed as part of the install process a bad idea too?).
The latter.  It would be a nice idea to try and improve this.

Kris
>> There is a FAQ about this on the cvsup webpage on www.polstra.com that 
>> explains in detail.
> 
> Thanks, will take a look. Learn something new every day I guess! :)
> 
> -pete.
> 
>