From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 4 21:27:37 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEC416A4CE for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 21:27:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from relay.rdsnet.ro (gimli.rdsnet.ro [193.231.236.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDB9343D66 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 21:27:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: (qmail 10630 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 21:19:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.rdsnet.ro) (62.231.74.130) by smtp1-133.rdsnet.ro with SMTP; 4 May 2005 21:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 15204 invoked by uid 89); 4 May 2005 21:39:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.tecnik93.com) (81.196.204.98) by 0 with SMTP; 4 May 2005 21:39:10 -0000 Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1732B116B6; Thu, 5 May 2005 00:26:42 +0300 (EEST) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 00:26:41 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Bill Moran Message-ID: <20050505002641.42feddc2@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20050504171359.6583950f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <4279312F.20207@charter.net> <20050504171359.6583950f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.4) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: wxs@csh.rit.edu cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: Jim Campbell Subject: Re: Problem with portsdb X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 21:27:38 -0000 On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:13:59 -0400 Bill Moran wrote: > Jim Campbell wrote: > > Wesley and Bill, > > > > You both suggested the same solution. Before I go off and do it, I > > need to be clear about something. Having done a "make fetchindex"I > > should NOT do a "make index" or "portsdb -uU" since that would > > overwrite the just-fetched INDEX. Is this correct? > > That's correct. If you run "make index" it will overwrite what you > just fetched, thus undoing the fetchindex. portsdb with -U will do > the same as a "make index". Yes, make index or portsdb -U will generate the index file and overwrite the fetched one. However usually the fetched index and the locally generated one differs because of the WITH_* you have chosen, ports aoto-picking dependencies, make.conf settings, pkgtools.conf. etc. > It's OK to do a "portsdb -u", but this isn't required, as it will do > this on demand anyway. > > If you've got an up-to-date version of portupgrade, it actually does > the fetchindex for you when it notices things are out of date, but > older versions automatically do "make index" ... so make sure your > portupgrade is updated first. This is IMO a bad advice and a (semi)-bad decision taken by portupgrade for reasons explained above. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"