Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:07:19 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: portsnap problem Message-ID: <4F5CA387.9070008@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1331470527.25467.4.camel@z6000.lenzicasa> References: <4F5C950F.2020203@mailbox.sk> <201203110738.02969.lumiwa@gmail.com> <1331470527.25467.4.camel@z6000.lenzicasa>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig77FBD71010B463E4F36209FC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/03/2012 12:55, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote: > Em Dom, 2012-03-11 =C3=A0s 07:38 -0500, ajtiM escreveu: >=20 >> On Sunday 11 March 2012 07:05:35 Herby Voj=C4=8D=C3=ADk wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> for a day already, portsnap fetch seems not to fetch newest changes. >>> freshports shows lots of changes, port portsnap fetch says there >>> everything is up to date. >>> I checked that the ports are really newer in freshports than in my ma= chine. >>> I also removed everything in /usr/ports and /var/db/portsnap and issu= ed >>> portsnap fetch extract, but it did not help. >>> >>> Maybe some job that creates patches for portsnap died? >>> >=20 > Or just that ports system is "frozen" because of the 8.3 release??? >=20 > Occam's razor: >=20 > when you have two or more competing theories=20 > that make exactly the same predictions, > the simpler one is the better. That's not it. Ports only gets frozen completely for a matter of an hour or so as part of the release process. Instead, it spends much of the period leading up to a release in "Slush" -- which is the case at the moment. Slush doesn't mean that ports stop being updated. On the contrary, there have been some twenty-odd ports updated just this morning as I can see from the cvs-ports@ mailing list. Slush does mean that changes with large scale ramifications are not permitted, so last week's perl-related updates for instance, would not be allowed right now. The portsnap thing is a real problem. No idea what or why or how long to fix, but I'd hazard a guess that the answer to the last is "by later today." Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey --------------enig77FBD71010B463E4F36209FC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9co40ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyN9ACfU3BJvLVBmgwuNc1D/XL7yGq5 sSgAnR/2752GpD0rMOd+TZryYqE4xC2L =b7f7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig77FBD71010B463E4F36209FC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F5CA387.9070008>