Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:04:34 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net> Cc: FreeBSD - questions <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: portupgrade vs. portmanager Message-ID: <20041224060434.GB90273@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> References: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 10:01:58PM -0800, Jay O'Brien wrote: > I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.=20 > Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at=20 > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=3D1 > I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored out,=20 > telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped the non- > english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD. >=20 > In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it looks=20 > like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.=20 >=20 > My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,=20 > perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?=20 If you refuse parts of the ports collection, it's impossible for you to build a consistent INDEX from it, which is what portsdb -uU does. If you don't actually want to rebuild your own index, you can use 'make fetchindex' instead. Kris --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBy7FyWry0BWjoQKURApj+AJ45eUY+6ZQnPUEbOw5vCgDe5lLX8gCg5wEN dBH8ClyA3/0Af5AtyUrF2mk= =Y0JQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041224060434.GB90273>