From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 24 04:59:48 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18C416A41C for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 04:59:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rperry@gti.net) Received: from apollo.gti.net (apollo.gti.net [199.171.27.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8D543D49 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 04:59:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rperry@gti.net) Received: from zulu.my.domain (morr0637.gti.net [208.216.122.37]) by apollo.gti.net (mail) with ESMTP id 3799535783; Tue, 24 May 2005 00:59:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob Perry To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:20:29 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <200505221429.58567.rperry@gti.net> <44sm0e133s.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <44sm0e133s.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200505231120.29223.rperry@gti.net> Cc: Lowell Gilbert Subject: Re: Confused with Refuse 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: Tue, 24 May 2005 04:59:48 -0000 On Mon May 23 2005 9:30 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Bob Perry writes: > > About to synch up the entire source tree with RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE. > > Earlier I created a refuse file, (/var/db/sup/refuse), when I upgraded my > > doc and ports collection in 5.3 but remember reading somewhere that a > > refuse file was not necessarily recommended when updating an entire > > source tree. Is that still the case? > > You may not be able to build your own INDEX, and dependency-tracking > packages may get confused if the INDEX doesn't match the installed > ports, but things won't necessarily break. But you're on your own; > please don't report problems unless you know they occur with a fully > updated tree. That's the sort of warning I remember. Just couldn't readily understand why the Handbook still recommends creating it. Thanks for your response. Bob Perry