Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 22:24:57 -0700
From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>
To: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@dyslexicfish.net>
Cc: Xin LI <d@delphij.net>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: make portsnap generate INDEX-${OSREL:R} only by default
Message-ID: <CAN6yY1vg51O63gVPG%2BX_Ev92Ch_Ld%2BJQokWECYsBHQts3TTbfA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201508070458.t774wiqp073664@dyslexicfish.net>
References: <55C3F9AA.4020602@delphij.net> <CAN6yY1u6PHDFpTPohT7KQ6O4_TQUpAmJfEjOdXaL12Oy8MRQKg@mail.gmail.com> <201508070458.t774wiqp073664@dyslexicfish.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@dyslexicfish.net> wrote: > Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Isn't rebuilding the index useful for people running STABLE? I assume > that > > I need a current index to get useful output from "pkg version -vL=". I am > > probably a bit unusual in that I keep a current ports tre on a STABLE > > system, but there are a couple of ports that I need to build due to > custom > > options and I find poudriere overkill for this case. I suspect many > people > > running STABLE may use portsnap and build everything from ports. (This > use > > to be common fairly recently and likely still is.) > > I run stable, and compile from source with a current ports tree on all my > machines too. > > But... > > > Or, am I missing the obvious... something I seem to do too often these > days. > > ... maybe I'm missing something that you haven't missed, which is more > likely! : > > I've already altered my portsnap.conf to only produce INDEX-10, and from > what I > can gather, this is basically what Xin Li is proposing becomes the > default..., > i.e. only produce INDEX-9 for 9.X, INDEX-10 for 10.X and INDEX-11 for 11.X > > Isn't it the case that the index required is 'tuned' to the dependencies > each > port requires based on base software (e.g. the index file on 10.X upwards > won't > list a dependency on converters/libiconv) so even if you portsnap your > ports > tree, it's still INDEX-10 you'd require on a FreeBSD-10.X machine..? > > Cheers, > Jamie > Yes, I was missing the obvious. I am a bit concerned about some edge cases involving system upgrades. Of course, if everyone follows recommendation and rebuilds all ports after a major version upgrade, it should work fine. Or the code in portsnap could be modified to get the current running version. This would need to be an option that could be turned off for the few people who actually need more than one index file. Still, looks like a good idea to me! -- Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1vg51O63gVPG%2BX_Ev92Ch_Ld%2BJQokWECYsBHQts3TTbfA>