Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:55:56 -0400 From: "Andre Goree" <andre@drenet.info> To: "Lowell Gilbert" <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proper way to update ports with svn Message-ID: <op.wusfniy3qdqf40@sideswipe.accesso.office> In-Reply-To: <44d2uhcahf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <515607C1.2010701@drenet.info> <44d2uhcahf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:56:12 -0400, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> wrote: > Andre Goree <andre@drenet.info> writes: > >> I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up >> /usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using >> 'portversion'. This doesn't seem correct...and if so portsnap would >> seem like a much better tool. Perhaps I should be running 'make >> fetchindex' instead? I'm sure I've read about the correct way to do so, >> but it doesn't appear to be here: >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsSubversionPrimer > > Subversion is not relevant; it has not changed the use of the > index file. 'portversion' is part of the portupgrade port, and > requires not just an index but its own database version of the > index file. Building your own index will be slightly more > accurate for what is actually on your box, but fetching it will > be much faster and nearly always accurate enough. Thanks for the insight! -- Andre Goree andre@drenet.info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wusfniy3qdqf40>