Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:12:24 +0900 From: KOMATSU Shinichiro <koma2@lovepeers.org> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cronopios@gmail.com, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/portupgrade Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <43B918A8.5010908@lovepeers.org> In-Reply-To: <20060101191016.5efae084@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <200601011543.k01Fhat3076426@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060101191016.5efae084@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello,
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
> Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
>
>> (5) The frequency of INDEX generation on official site is now
>>sufficient, recommend to run "portsdb -F" (fetch INDEX from official
>>site) instead of "portsdb -U" (make INDEX by yourself) in portsdb(1).
>>[1]
>
>
>> PR: ports/91164
>> Submitted by: KOMATSU Shinichiro <koma2@lovepeers.org>
>>(maintainer) Pointed out by: Enrique Matias <cronopios at gmail dot
>>com> [1]
>
>
> This is a very bad idea; locally generated INDEX contains all
> use-defined OPTIONS, etc. while the fetched one contains only the
> defaults thus his has the potential to break the wonderful
> upward-recursive usage of portupgrade.
In the man page of portsdb(1), I wrote as follows:
-U
--updateindex Update or create the INDEX file by running ``make index''.
If you define special macros in /etc/make.conf and
the dependency of some ports are changed, you should create
INDEX by yourself by using this option. Otherwise, using
-F option is recommended since it is much faster.
I forgot to mention OPTIONS, so I will add in the next release.
I hope this sentence would satisfy you.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43B918A8.5010908>