Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:01:46 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org, knu@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Differences between 'make index' and 'portsdb -U' Message-ID: <20040208230146.GA22388@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040208190413.GA421@moo.holy.cow> References: <20040207082502.GA67113@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040208190413.GA421@moo.holy.cow>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:04:13PM -0500, parv wrote: > > Modulo the cosmetic bug #1 above, this all counts in favour of using > > 'make index' to build your indexes, and against using 'portsdb -U' >=20 > Kris you forgot to mention that portupgrade will create a usable > INDEX on FreeBSD 4.8 and more importantly when ports tree is > incomplete, unlike 'make index'. Since neither of those are supported, I'm not too worried. It's much more important that portsdb -U could not be used to make an index that did not contain errors. Kris --+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAJr/aWry0BWjoQKURAiLhAJ4tHKvVLvZUOIM3zEHwSVmybOF31wCggGQ3 jXyLMqHGu+uOrK8VmKVmmYo= =n12L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040208230146.GA22388>