From owner-freebsd-www@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 11 14:46:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-www@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC5D16A4D0; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from phantom.cris.net (phantom.cris.net [212.110.130.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA4843D55; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:46:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phantom@FreeBSD.org.ua) Received: from phantom.cris.net (phantom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phantom.cris.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2BMlqRR020767; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:47:52 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from phantom@FreeBSD.org.ua) Received: (from phantom@localhost) by phantom.cris.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i2BMlq8q020766; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:47:52 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from phantom) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:47:50 +0200 From: Alexey Zelkin To: "Simon L. Nielsen" Message-ID: <20040311224750.GA20712@phantom.cris.net> References: <200403112210.i2BMAEgn050693@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200403112210.i2BMAEgn050693@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE i386 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: freebsd-www@freebsd.org Subject: Re: www/64120: /mnt/www/en/ports/needs to be re-run X-BeenThere: freebsd-www@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Project Webmasters List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:46:44 -0000 hi, On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:10:14PM -0800, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > On 2004.03.11 15:40:22 -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > >=20 > > The top-level 'ports' webpage does not yet reflect the new > > net-mgmt category. The category is already listed in the > > files 'categories', so it seems likely that no one remembered > > to run the script. > > Without having checked I'm rather sure the reason is that those pages > are based on INDEX and that hasn't been updated since the addition of > the new category. > > The proper solution is of course not to use INDEX from CVS but a freshly > build one, but I don't have the time to implement that at the moment. IMO, The proper solution is to leave it as is. Even using INDEX www/en/ports is most time and cpu consuming part (except *maybe* doc/) of www tree. We don't need to get www builder machine into yet another ports index tester.