Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:37:57 -0800 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kopete 7.3 Message-ID: <200401271437.57571.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <20040127213718.GC68505@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <004401c3e4cf$647d91e0$c10133ce@dilkie.com> <200401271202.17222.kstewart@owt.com> <20040127213718.GC68505@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 01:37 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:02:17PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote: > > > I always do a "make index" in the /usr/ports directory. Have I > > > been doing it wrong? > > > > No, I also use make index because historically there were > > significantly fewer error messages. I think someone almost got > > hysterical from surprise a short time ago when portsdb -U completed > > with out a single message. > > > > My attitude is that if Kris' script ran portsdb -U, then I would > > use it everytime I cvsup ports-all instead of using make index. > > AFAIK portsdb -U just calls 'make index' internally. The difference > would then presumably be caused by the make environment: my index > build tests simulate a clean environment by defining LOCALBASE, > X11BASE, etc. That hasn't always been true. Make index would find 1 or 2 more ports than -U would. There are also times when make index falls flat and -U would still produce a useful INDEX. In addition, portsdb -U used to run quite a bit faster than make index did. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401271437.57571.kstewart>