From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Apr 24 11:36:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from dagobert.skystream.nl (smtp.uwnet.nl [195.7.130.55]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990F037B422 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:36:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abgoeree@uwnet.nl) Received: from dyn.dailup.c227140146.isd.to (dyn.dailup.c227140146.isd.to [213.227.140.146]) by dagobert.skystream.nl (8.11.3/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3OIh1x01686 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:43:01 +0200 Received: (qmail 11735 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Apr 2001 18:36:24 -0000 From: "Andre Goeree" Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:36:24 +0200 To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: ports-supfile (-picobsd -science) Message-ID: <20010424203624.A11671@mandark.attica.home> Reply-To: abgoeree@uwnet.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Sender: abgoeree@uwnet.nl Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hello -stable, When using the latest ports-supfile, modified 2001/04/22, the following ports collections appear not to exist: [output from CVSup logfile] Exchanging collection information Server message: Unknown collection "ports-picobsd" Server message: Unknown collection "ports-science" [snip] Skipping collection ports-picobsd/cvs Skipping collection ports-science/cvs Are these collections not enabled yet? Would specifying ports-all instead of the seperate collections make any difference? -Andre. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message