Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:58:17 -0400 From: Jim Trigg <jtrigg@spamcop.net> To: Rob Lahaye <lahaye@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portupgrade: installed package "succeeds port" ? Message-ID: <20030506125817.GD58956@scadian.net> In-Reply-To: <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net> References: <3EB6F33E.3040108@users.sourceforge.net> <20030506001037.GD5392@grimoire.chen.org.nz> <2147483647.1052171822@[192.168.1.32]> <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:08:55PM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
>
> Jim Trigg wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I've found that "cd /usr/ports; make index" is more reliable
> > than "portsdb -U".
>
> Are you sure? "make index" runs for ever here!
> On a 700 MHz Pentium III PC, it's already running for over an hour,
> without any indication of doing something useful. The /usr/ports/INDEX
> file has still size 0.
>
> portsdb -U also lasts for a long while, but at least finishes at some
> point :).
>
> Or have I broken anything in the ports administration?
> But what else is there than the INDEX file?
In my experience, while make index takes longer than portsdb -U, it is
more reliable. (I have seen make index work when portsdb -U fails; I
have never seen portsdb -U work when make index failed.)
Jim
--
Jim Trigg, Lord High Everything Else O- /"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
Hostmaster, Huie Kin family website X HELP CURE HTML MAIL
Verger, All Saints Church - Sharon Chapel / \
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506125817.GD58956>