From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 15 09:26:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E5616A4CE for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:26:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.owt.com (smtp.owt.com [204.118.6.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B854C43D1D for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:26:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kstewart@owt.com) Received: from [207.41.94.233] (owt-207-41-94-233.owt.com [207.41.94.233]) by smtp.owt.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iAF9PZLc002009; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:25:36 -0800 From: Kent Stewart To: Jiawei Ye Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:26:20 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <200411150040.45281.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411150126.20446.kstewart@owt.com> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: refuse file for cvsup being ignored X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:26:22 -0000 On Monday 15 November 2004 12:53 am, Jiawei Ye wrote: > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:40:45 -0800, Kent Stewart wrote: > > On Sunday 14 November 2004 11:12 pm, Jiawei Ye wrote: > > > In -current, the base for cvsup has been changed to /var/db per > > > share/example/cvsup/ports-supfile. But setting "ports/INDEX*" in > > > /var/db/sup/refuse does not work as advertised. cvsup still nukes my > > > INDEX-5 when doing 'make update' in $PORTS_DIR. > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > It won't download a new one. It just deletes the old one. It goes along > > with removing INDEX[-5] from cvs. > > > > Kent > > Then we really need to update our cvsup man page: > " The patterns are separated by whitespace, and multiple patterns are > permitted on each line. Files and directories matching the patterns > are neither updated nor deleted; they are simply ignored." > > The advertised behaviour is different from what actually happened. I agree. I don't know the mechanism but when the moved INDEX to attic, things happen and the delete on our end is one of the symptoms. I think the refuse just stopped it from downloading a new version but the delete is being handled differently. It really messed up my backup script because I keep the last 4 old versions of INDEX[-5] and it was deleting them before I bzip2'ed them. Other than being slightly annoying, it didn't matter to me because I always generate a new INDEX everytime I cvsup ports-all. I have downloaded Seaman's FreeBSB-Portindex and use it to do a fast generate of INDEX. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html