From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 23 17:00:58 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3387137B401 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 17:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.halplant.com (ip68-98-167-210.nv.nv.cox.net [68.98.167.210]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BB143F75 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 17:00:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from A.J.Caines@halplant.com) Received: by mail.halplant.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7EE50B3; Fri, 23 May 2003 20:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 20:00:56 -0400 From: Andrew J Caines To: FreeBSD-STABLE Message-ID: <20030524000056.GJ383@hal9000.halplant.com> Mail-Followup-To: FreeBSD-STABLE References: <00af01c320e0$271fe270$426f2a40@boondocks> <20030523065702.GD383@hal9000.halplant.com> <20030523214236.GA64636@moo.holy.cow> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030523214236.GA64636@moo.holy.cow> Organization: H.A.L. Plant X-PGP-Fingerprint: C59A 2F74 1139 9432 B457 0B61 DDF2 AA61 67C3 18A1 X-Powered-by: FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE X-URL: http://halplant.com:88/ X-Yahoo-Profile: AJ_Z0 Importance: Normal User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: issue with ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Andrew J Caines List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 00:00:58 -0000 Parv, > > # cd /usr/ports/ ; > INDEX ; > INDEX.db ; make index ; portsdb -Uu > > # > /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db ; pkgdb -u > O! The Horrors! That's nothing compared to updating Mozilla and JDK, at least on my box. > Why are you obliterating INDEX* & pkgdb.db files? I was answering a question. I don't mess with my INDEX like this. > You do realize that you are digging your own grave in case indexing or > installed ports db making fails, or the processes need to be stopped? Nope. I can always get my INDEX file back if needed, or download it. The db file can be remade any time. > make index already takes care of INDEX, unfortunately, instead of keeping > around the old copy unless index making succeeds. I've never seen "make index" fail, so I doubt this is significant. I'm all in favour of preserving data for recovery in case of failure, but in this case wouldn't a filed "make index" imply that INDEX is/was inaccurate? > By using -U option, you are rebuilding INDEX. Why then you already built > it once? Like much the cooing & warmth oozing out of your computer? I'm under contract with the ministry for redundancy ministry. Actually, I only run "portsdb -Uu", not "make index". Again, mentioned only for illustrative purposes. Thanks for spotting the unnecessary step. -Andrew- -- _______________________________________________________________________ | -Andrew J. Caines- Unix Systems Engineer A.J.Caines@halplant.com | | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary | | safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |