From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 18 14:14:57 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125EB1065670 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:14:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D262F8FC08 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadk27 with SMTP id k27so6822716iad.13 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:14:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=1O/4hETyiIeke1WCTAulA3KNJpGb8zB6zX0+VsGjmU4=; b=plH6Ez/zDPcgE4Pb7KvNl2dRoiQ/LKtIfsME6iYDhr5BKw1tWJKrlWtAsuRT8GovX7 zo6VZJ5TtOxbn5pIMyq82errZYoUWPULd/NRBPWnxbmJpmRqsP0Rw2Le2idfbvnHQ4JZ H2eh56nt1vCXwkm8kffcroVcOWDJt7u1VrZrk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.65.73 with SMTP id h9mr2458615ibi.21.1316355296141; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.35.194 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.35.194 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:14:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E75DE55.7080206@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:14:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Version of "opencv-core-2.3.1" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:14:57 -0000 On 18 Sep 2011 15:02, "Carmel" wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:04:37 +0100 > Matthew Seaman articulated: > > > If you wait for a few hours and re-csup it should be fixed. AFAIK, I > > don't think this affects portsnap because it generates the INDEX in a > > different way. Or you can create your own INDEX if you want. > > Thanks Mathew for you info. I am using "portsnap" so apparently it does > exhibit this behavior. I any case, since it is apparently not a critical > problem I will just ignore it for now. > > Since Matthew pointed out that the versions were actually going forwards, you can indeed fix this with make fetchindex. Chris