From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 10:14:01 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 BA96737B401 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rutger.owt.com (rutger.owt.com [204.118.6.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2831843F93 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:14:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kstewart@owt.com) Received: from topaz-out (owt-207-41-94-233.owt.com [207.41.94.233]) by rutger.owt.com (8.11.6p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h46HDvV23802; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:13:57 -0700 From: Kent Stewart To: Jim Trigg , Rob Lahaye Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:13:57 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <3EB6F33E.3040108@users.sourceforge.net> <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net> <20030506125817.GD58956@scadian.net> In-Reply-To: <20030506125817.GD58956@scadian.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200305061013.57269.kstewart@owt.com> 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 17:14:02 -0000 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