From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 24 09:05:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21F416A510 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:05:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out012.verizon.net (out012pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.137]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1121543D2D for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:05:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ringworm@inbox.lv) Received: from ringworm.mechee.com ([4.26.84.7]) by out012.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20041224090541.BJEZ10436.out012.verizon.net@ringworm.mechee.com> for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:05:41 -0600 Received: by ringworm.mechee.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0F5AE2CE740; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:02:56 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael C. Shultz" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:02:55 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <20041224084042.GA36458@xor.obsecurity.org> <41CBD894.20806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <41CBD894.20806@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200412240102.55744.ringworm@inbox.lv> X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out012.verizon.net from [4.26.84.7] at Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:05:41 -0600 Subject: Re: error in "make index" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:05:43 -0000 On Friday 24 December 2004 12:51 am, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 03:38:56AM -0500, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >>Mark Linimon wrote: > >>>Sigh. Already fixed. A quick check of tonight's mailing list > >>> would have confirmed that this has already been reported. Please > >>> re-cvsup and try again. > >>> > >>>I'm beginning to wonder if when we took INDEX out of the > >>> repository we should have disabled the index target, or aliased > >>> it to the fetchindex one. > >>> > >>>I would really advocate that most people move to "make fetchindex" > >>>and only use "make index" if there is some pressing reason (local > >>>non-standard ports installations, unusual and well-understood > >>>make.conf options). > >> > >>I've already suggested this to knu, but it bears repeating here: > >> I'd really really really strongly advocate portupgrade running > >> 'make fetchindex' instead of 'make index'. > > > > The corresponding change was committed today. > > It seems that it only does so if you run 'portsdb -F' manually > yourself. If you remove INDEX* and run 'portupgrade -a', it still > attempts to build INDEX the 'make index' way. > > >>And frankly, I'd support having 'make fetchindex' run automatically > >> by the ports build system if the ${PORTS_INDEX} file doesn't > >> exist. > > > > That sounds like a good idea. > > Should I open a PR for it? > > # Adam What if someone isn't connected to the internet? Probably shouldn't be done automatically during port builds because many people just build from a CD. -Mike