From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 27 05:18:28 2005 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 C572E16A4CE for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:18:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from shell.reiteration.net (82-34-179-228.cable.ubr01.sout.blueyonder.co.uk [82.34.179.228]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECE943D31 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:18:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jfm@reiteration.net) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=reiteration.net) by shell.reiteration.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D5Gvn-000Ja4-Sk for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:25:28 +0000 From: "John" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:25:25 +0000 Message-Id: <20050227045510.M67328@reiteration.net> In-Reply-To: <43908349.20050226154151@wanadoo.fr> References: <20050226130211.4162005f.albi@scii.nl> <1262756249.20050226141419@wanadoo.fr> <20050226142726.M5182@reiteration.net> <43908349.20050226154151@wanadoo.fr> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.50 20050106 X-OriginatingIP: 192.168.1.7 (jfm) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jfm@reiteration.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shell.reiteration.net); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: Re: Installation instructions for Firefox somewhere? 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: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:18:28 -0000 On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:41:51 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote > But I figured that if I always pull the index from an FTP site, it's > guaranteed to be up to date. Isn't that true? It guarantees that the index will be up-to-date [0]. The index is not the port skeleton. To be honest, I don't know the depths of how make index works. I just know that make readmes or portupgrade will complain if I use a refuse file in /usr/ports/sup and tell me to make index [1]. Beforehand, I used the refuse file so I didn't have to cvsup stuff I wasn't going to install. > I'm never going to > install more than a small fraction of the ports, so putting the > entire tree on my site seems wasteful, especially if I have to constantly > update it. I suppose I'm nit-picking here, but you would cron it rather than running it by hand. > I do have the tree on my production server, but only because > I had a lot more disk space to play with. How much space have you got to play with? If space is tight, running make distclean after make install helps, as does periodically deleting the contents of /usr/ports/distfiles A refuse file would have helped you. Can anyone explain or point to a reference as to why this no longer works? [2] [0] if you mean, by "pull the index from an ftp site" cd /usr/ports && make index [1] this behaviour started happening at 4.10 or thereabouts. I don't know why, and I haven't had the time to research it. [2] well, the refuse file works. But the fact that the ports tree has been altered makes 'make readmes' complain. -- lists@reiteration.net