From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 23 05:22:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BAD16A4CE for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:22:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (fed1rmmtao06.cox.net [68.230.241.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4E843D1D for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:22:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mnavarre@cox.net) Received: from reichlieu.lan ([68.6.195.68]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040623051948.HNDZ6676.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@reichlieu.lan>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:19:48 -0400 Received: from reichlieu.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by reichlieu.lan (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5N5Jml4086936; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:19:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mnavarre@reichlieu.lan) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reichlieu.lan (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i5N5JltC086935; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mnavarre) From: Matt Navarre To: Kent Stewart Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:19:47 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20040622220538.34e5e5a5@localhost> <200406222127.02481.mnavarre@cox.net> <200406222151.15101.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <200406222151.15101.kstewart@owt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406222219.47739.mnavarre@cox.net> X-SA-Scanned: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.41 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvsup and ports INDEX X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:22:23 -0000 On Tuesday 22 June 2004 09:51, Kent Stewart wrote: > On Tuesday 22 June 2004 09:27 pm, Matt Navarre wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 June 2004 07:05, epilogue@allstream.net wrote: > > > hello all, > > > > This checks out the new ports text file. > > > > > # portsdb -Uu <<<<<<< ...this? > > > > This builds INDEX.db, which is all the ports/dependency information > > in the format that portupgrade(and others?) uses so it can get all > > the right ports when you install something. > > > > > i'm not sure i have a firm grasp of why i do both. are they > > > complimentary or redundant steps? could someone please clarify or > > > point me to right set of docs? > > > > They're complimentary, portsdb -uU doesn't really do anything unless > > you have a new /usr/ports/INDEX or /usr/ports/INDEX.db got hosed. > > This isn't true. Portsdb -U creates a brand new INDEX using your > current /usr/ports and -u uses that to generate a new INDEX.db That's not what the man page implys: "The portsdb command is a tool to generates the ports database named INDEX.db from the ports index file named INDEX. It is commonly used among the tool suite and automatically updated on demand when it gets older than the index file" I'm not sayin' you're wrong, since I read that a long while ago and haven't needed to know anything more about portsdb since, but you and the description in portsdb(1) seem to disagree. Yes, the -U option does "Update or create the ports index file called INDEX", it's just not evident from the description that it can use the installed ports tree. So I was kinda right. A little :) > Kent Matt -- "We all enter this world in the same way: naked, screaming, and soaked in blood. But if you live your life right, that kind of thing doesn't have to stop there." -- Dana Gould