Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:05:57 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net> Subject: Re: HEADSUP: INDEX[-5] files were removed from CVS. Message-ID: <m3ekixjnve.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <419655EB.8070506@gmx.net> (Michael Nottebrock's message of "Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:43:55 %2B0100") References: <20041113101925.GB70256@voodoo.oberon.net> <20041113174948.GD76034@nevermind.kiev.ua> <419655EB.8070506@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> writes: > It's unfortunate that the INDEXFILE defaults haven't been changed with the > removal (it's also unfortunate that portsdb -U breaks if INDEXFILE is > overriden in make.conf, but that's a portupgrade bug). It might take a while > until the necessary additional changes have been reviewed - perhaps using > sysutils/portsnap to update your portstree will do as a workaround for the > time being (you get matching indices for each ports update). It's unfortunate that major changes are made without public consultation and then only halfway. "make fetchindex" runs on the order of a minute for my machine (1 Mbit/s link), but I'm definitely not using "make index" on my K6-2/300. It's about time for a _fast_ index generator, or a cache so that only changed records are replaced. INDEX has been an annoyance ever since but no-one has a decent solution how ports can do without. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3ekixjnve.fsf>