Sorry, it was not my intent to hijack the thread and actually the original post was on "Firefox and stable ports" and the link you posted in your reply actually pointed to the Makefile that I understand was tagged with Revision 1.40.2.1.
Quote:
Basically correct. Sometimes, updates are pushed down to the -stable & even the -release branches. You can determine if updates have been pushed down to these branches by looking at the CVS tree. As an example for Firefox 3.5 (Firefox 3.6 is currently unavailable due to the impending release of OpenBSD 4.8...), the project's Web interface for the ports tree shows that the Makefile was updated a few days ago:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvswe...www/firefox35/
Clicking the link for "Makefile" shows the individual check-ins & more importantly for this discussion, the CVS tags. Note that Revision 1.40.2.1 has the tagname OPENBSD_4_8. This is the tag associated with the -stable branch. If additional updates are pushed to -stable, this tag will move to a newer revision.
|
My goal is still to update firefox35 for the 4_8 patch branch and I basically posted my out of date ports to show that I had followed FAQ's 5 and 15 successfully.
Quote:
|
If you have never used the ports tree before, start by practicing with some other, simple ports, until you get the hang of building packages.
|
I was looking at the next step and as suggested by Jggimi, I asked about the process of updating a more simple port and also about the time line for the firefox35 update to show up.
I appreciate trying to make searches more efficient but the new thread is still about updating firefox35 while staying in stable/patch branch. Just because I responded to some advice to used a less complex port does that make it an uncool hijack of a thread?