Re: make package for mutt fails

["James Moore" <jim.moore@firelinedsl.com>]

On 1 Sep 00, David J. Kanter wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 10:25:06PM -0500, James Moore wrote:
> > Most likely your problem is the same one discussed here recently. You
> > can find some details by reading the recent threads "Tracking Ports",
> > "mutt config hosed?" & "Speaking of mutt problems" in the archives. 
> ---end quoted text---
> 
> Well, I started the "Tracking ports" thread and I'm even more confused
> than ever!

Ah, well then - welcome to the club my friend! BTW - I'm posting this 
to the list so that those who are more knowledgeable than I can correct 
any mis-statements I may make here.

> I hope to install OpenBSD 2.7 this afternoon, but is it fair enough for
> me to just unload the 2.7 ports tarball and use that? What will I miss
> out on if I don't track the -current ports branch?

The 2.7 ports tarball that shipped on the cd is several months old now. 
So in general, you'll miss out on any patches or additions made since 
then. For example: the mutt port (and the current mutt package BTW) in 
the tarball on the cd is broken, so you won't be able to build a 
functional mutt without somehow repairing the defect.

> I'm using FreeBSD now where it's totally safe to track -stable src and
> -current ports. But it seems with OpenBSD you must track both from the
> same branch. Is this true?

It's neat that you can do that in FreeBSD. But you can't do it in 
OpenBSD. And unfortunately while there is a -stable branch for /usr/src 
(aka the "patch branch in OpenBSD), there is only a single branch for 
the ports tree (see the "ports" page @ www.openbsd.org). 

I am under the impression (I haven't tried this yet) that cvs can be 
configured to update your local ports tree to an arbitrary date/time 
version from one of the CVS servers. 

Of course if you've elected to follow the -current /usr/src tree then 
(as of today at least) you could update both your src & ports trees, 
and they would be "in sync".

> Is -current really quite stable, when compared to the FreeBSD -current?
> -current for FreeBSD is the 5.X branch, while -stable is the 4.X branch.
> Perhaps OpenBSD and FreeBSD don't agree on what -current means (i.e.,
> -current in OpenBSD is soon to be 2.8)? -- David Kanter

I don't know FreeBSD's definitions, but I don't think that -current in 
OpenBSD is "quite stable".

Hope this helps.

James Moore