Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:10:41 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: broken INDEX Message-ID: <49EB8541.3000301@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <20090419201301.4431770b@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <49EAEF3C.6090409@bsdforen.de> <49EAF467.4020407@bsdforen.de> <20090419201301.4431770b@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:52:39 +0200 > Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> wrote: > > >> This is not the first time this has happened and I'm wondering, is >> this a bug in Tinderbox? Shouldn't packages listed in the INDEX >> always be available? >> ... >> So I think packages should really only be listed in the INDEX if >> they are available and only deleted AFTER they have been removed >> from the INDEX. > > > The INDEX file is information about the current ports tree, and it has > to match the current tree. It's used by portupgrade, pkg_version, > portversion, and a few minor make targets to speed things up. > > INDEX has little to do with package files, not all packages listed in > INDEX are even packaged. Umm... no. The index file in the ports tree is what you are talking about. I'm talking about the INDEX file provided by a package build server (like tinderbox), which only contains entries about ports actually available as binary packages. This is a mirroring problem (at least I assume it is). On ftp://ftp.freebsd.org the INDEX is consistent with the available packages. To fix this a mirror would have to update in the following way: 1) Download the new INDEX into a temporary location. 2) Download all packages listed in the new index file. 3) Overwrite the old INDEX with the new one. 4) Delete all packages no longer listed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49EB8541.3000301>