From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 19 20:33:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450701065670 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:33:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [212.204.60.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0380B8FC16 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:33:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (unknown [88.130.200.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE758A012C; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:10:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49EB8541.3000301@bsdforen.de> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:10:41 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090408) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RW References: <49EAEF3C.6090409@bsdforen.de> <49EAF467.4020407@bsdforen.de> <20090419201301.4431770b@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20090419201301.4431770b@gumby.homeunix.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: broken INDEX X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:33:48 -0000 RW wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:52:39 +0200 > Dominic Fandrey 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.