Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:13:57 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: Jim Trigg <jtrigg@spamcop.net>, Rob Lahaye <lahaye@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade: installed package "succeeds port" ? Message-ID: <200305061013.57269.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <20030506125817.GD58956@scadian.net> References: <3EB6F33E.3040108@users.sourceforge.net> <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net> <20030506125817.GD58956@scadian.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 06 May 2003 05:58 am, Jim Trigg wrote: > 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.) Try both ways right now. Make index is experiencing massive failures. You get around 3600 ports in INDEX.db with make index and 8572 on a 5-current system using portsdb -uU. There are usually a few differances between 4-stable and 5-current but never this many :). You also can not typically do massive port refuses with make index. When make hits a area and fails, it just stops completely. Portsdb -U keeps on processing. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305061013.57269.kstewart>