On 9/7/07, Jerry McAllister <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 10:53:09AM -0500, cothrige wrote:
> > Sorry. What I really had in mind was the ports tree itself, which I
> > had an option during install to add. BTW, I answered yes to this and
> > so had that which was on the 6.2 install disc. Based on the other
> > responses, it is looking like perhaps that is not the best method, and
> > maybe I should have skipped that and then added the ports after the
> > install using cvsup or such. This is certainly a good thing to know
> > for the future, though as of right now I am dealing with the disc
> > install method.
> No. You were right to choose yes.
> That just installs the ports tree skeleton. It does not install
> any actual ports. Then when you do a csup tag=. for the ports tree,
> then it updates that tree. But you would still have to update
> the ports from the tree that you have chosen to install.
What exactly is the best method for the new install when it comes to
ports? I should say yes to installing the ports tree, but then how
should I go forward at that point? For instance, should I immediately
run csup when booting into the new system before actually installing
anything from ports? Will that speed things up in the end, or make
for greater stability?
> The ports tree from one version of the OS to the next is not
> particularly different. It is just instructions on how to get
> the source and build the port (including dependant ports). It
> gets a little out of date now and then as the list of files that
> need to be downloaded or build procedured change, so it need
> a csup update now and then. But what that csup does is update
> the skeleton, not the actual ports. That is a subsequent step.
Cool, that makes sense. I suppose right now it is a matter of
figuring out just getting used to how to handle the system and know
that I am carrying out the correct steps, or at least the most
reliable steps, in the most beneficial order.