Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 20:47:52 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: Rob Lahaye <lahaye@users.sourceforge.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade: installed package "succeeds port" ? Message-ID: <200305052047.52989.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net> References: <3EB6F33E.3040108@users.sourceforge.net> <2147483647.1052171822@[192.168.1.32]> <3EB72747.9000104@users.sourceforge.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 05 May 2003 08:08 pm, 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. It takes as much as 50% longer than -U. On my AMD 2000+ XP, it runs on the order of 15-20 minutes. I also don't run it when my mirror is being updated :). There are times when "make index" is broken and you have to use "portsdb -U". The inverse is also true. I have ended up using make index because Kris has a script that appears to run every 2 hours and tells the ports people when make index is broken. There isn't anything similar for portsdb -U. > > 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? You also need INDEX.db if you want to use portupgrade and tools. 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?200305052047.52989.kstewart>