Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:32:56 +0100 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: INDEX[-5] files were removed from CVS. Message-ID: <41965358.7090100@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <200411131001.08820.kstewart@owt.com> References: <20041113101925.GB70256@voodoo.oberon.net> <20041114003532.L60099@juana.isp.net.au> <20041113135821.GD70256@voodoo.oberon.net> <200411131001.08820.kstewart@owt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kent Stewart wrote:
> On Saturday 13 November 2004 05:58 am, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 12:39:15AM +1100, Mark Russell wrote:
>>
>>>please back this out, it breaks things, I've never found an out of date
>>>index to be a problem, now not havign an index is causing problems, also
>>>the extra bandwidth for fetch index is a hassle.
>>
>>What things did it break ? If you want to save your bandwidth, you
>>can use "make index" in /usr/ports/.
>>
>
>
> If someone would commit ports/73612, we would have a fast generator like
> portindex back :).
Also sysutils/portsnap is an alternative for updating ports trees which
shouldn't be affected by the deletion of the indices from CVS either.
--
,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org
(/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org
\u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41965358.7090100>