From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 05:58:19 2003 Return-Path: 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 318BD37B401 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 05:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from argent.heraldsnet.org (64.83.41.80.dsl80-bus-nova.cavtel.net [64.83.41.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343EA43FBF for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 05:58:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jtrigg@spamcop.net) Received: by argent.heraldsnet.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5765568C; Tue, 6 May 2003 08:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:58:17 -0400 From: Jim Trigg To: Rob Lahaye Message-ID: <20030506125817.GD58956@scadian.net> Mail-Followup-To: Rob Lahaye , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <3EB6F33E.3040108@users.sourceforge.net> <20030506001037.GD5392@grimoire.chen.org.nz> <2147483647.1052171822@[192.168.1.32]> <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portupgrade: installed package "succeeds port" ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 12:58:19 -0000 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 / \