Date: 23 May 2005 11:37:47 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Confused with Refuse Message-ID: <44psvix8ac.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <200505231120.29223.rperry@gti.net> References: <200505221429.58567.rperry@gti.net> <44sm0e133s.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <200505231120.29223.rperry@gti.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bob Perry <rperry@gti.net> writes: > On Mon May 23 2005 9:30 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > Bob Perry <rperry@gti.net> writes: > > > About to synch up the entire source tree with RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE. > > > Earlier I created a refuse file, (/var/db/sup/refuse), when I upgraded my > > > doc and ports collection in 5.3 but remember reading somewhere that a > > > refuse file was not necessarily recommended when updating an entire > > > source tree. Is that still the case? > > > > You may not be able to build your own INDEX, and dependency-tracking > > packages may get confused if the INDEX doesn't match the installed > > ports, but things won't necessarily break. But you're on your own; > > please don't report problems unless you know they occur with a fully > > updated tree. > That's the sort of warning I remember. Just couldn't readily understand why > the Handbook still recommends creating it. It recommends refuse files for the doc tree, which is *very* useful, because most users only want one language. On the ports tree, it mentions that some people do it, but doesn't recommend it as a general policy. It will work a lot of the time, and the ports makefiles warn about having a complete ports collection before reporting certain kinds of errors.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44psvix8ac.fsf>