From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 11 04:53:31 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2551106564A for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:53:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B41C8FC15 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:53:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.22]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2009 00:53:30 -0400 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.10.4-GA) with ESMTP id POY72397; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:52:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 209-6-22-188.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.22.188]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2009 00:52:47 -0400 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18871.17310.443084.684674@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:52:46 -0400 To: User Questions In-Reply-To: <49B738C5.5090108@enabled.com> References: <49B7199F.6040008@enabled.com> <18871.10830.685930.5873@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <49B738C5.5090108@enabled.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" XEmacs Lucid X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net) Subject: Re: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libxcb.so.1" not found, required by "libcairo.so.2" X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:53:32 -0000 Noah writes: > 1) use cvsup and get the entire ports > 2) cd /usr/ports && make index > 3) cd /usr/ports && make fetchindex Ummm ... it is my understanding that not only will (3) overwrite (2), but it will often resulr in a less current INDEX. Robert Huff