From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 26 14:27:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEFCBE1 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:27:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from legolas@legolasweb.nl) Received: from smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.164]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCE98FC08 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.133] (helo=smtp2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TczMw-0002w7-PI for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:09:06 +0100 Received: from 5357e32a.cm-6-8d.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.87.227.42] helo=homey.local) by smtp2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TczMv-0008K6-C9 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:09:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:10:18 +0100 From: Stas Verberkt To: Subject: Re: When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be =?UTF-8?Q?Updated=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <50B2A57A.3050500@tundraware.com> <50B2A8D8.90301@FreeBSD.org> <50B2AA07.8090103@tundraware.com> <201211251856.40381.lumiwa@gmail.com> <50B2BEE1.9030903@tundraware.com> Message-ID: <05eafe033134e0771d54dec2d9388c8f@homey.local> X-Sender: legolas@legolasweb.nl User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.4 X-Ziggo-spambar: ---- X-Ziggo-spamscore: -4.7 X-Ziggo-spamreport: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, PROLO_TRUST_RDNS=-3, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.2 X-Ziggo-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Flag: No X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:27:18 -0000 jb schreef op : > Tim Daneliuk tundraware.com> writes: > >> ... >> > I use portsnap fetch update and it works... >> >> Ah, maybe that was the problem. That works for me as well. > > Well, not quite ... > I think, after the security incident, you had to obtain a fresh snapshot of the ports tree, i.e. you had to do "portsnap fetch extract" before usual service continued. May this be your problem?