Date: 25 Mar 2004 09:34:25 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Aeefyu <afu-subscribed-list@aeefyu.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Probelms and Inconsistencies with Portupgrade Message-ID: <44brmlq9la.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <40623D7B.50403@aeefyu.net> References: <4060F9C0.5080102@aeefyu.net> <441xnhkdpz.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <40623D7B.50403@aeefyu.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Aeefyu <afu-subscribed-list@aeefyu.net> writes:
> Have been cvsup-ing for couple of days with the same
> results. /usr/ports/INDEX is updated correctly, but will have errors
> once I run portsdb -Uu. As of yesterday, I am skipping the "portsdb
> -Uu" step after cvsup-ing ports-all. This is NOT a correct behaviour
> for using portugrade, right?
It's not necessarily that bad. As the portsdb(1) manual says:
Note: the ports database file is automatically updated if
it is not up-to-date when looked up, so manual updating is
not mandatory.
> But I would imagine this would be a
> better alternative that having a /usr/ports/INDEX that has errors in
> it. (/usr/ports/INDEX.db would correspondingly have errors too?)
No, the errors wouldn't necessarily correspond; they're built by
fairly different methods. I don't recall any operations that require
you to have both; the standard ports tools only use INDEX, and the
portupgrade-related tools only use INDEX.db. [as far as I remember...]
When I'm having trouble building an INDEX, I run "make describe" and
see where it fails; that usually gives me the information I need to
fix it.
Good luck.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44brmlq9la.fsf>