Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:55:56 -0400
From:      "Andre Goree" <andre@drenet.info>
To:        "Lowell Gilbert" <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Proper way to update ports with svn
Message-ID:  <op.wusfniy3qdqf40@sideswipe.accesso.office>
In-Reply-To: <44d2uhcahf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
References:  <515607C1.2010701@drenet.info> <44d2uhcahf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:56:12 -0400, Lowell Gilbert  
<freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:

> Andre Goree <andre@drenet.info> writes:
>
>> I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up
>> /usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using
>> 'portversion'.  This doesn't seem correct...and if so portsnap would
>> seem like a much better tool.  Perhaps I should be running 'make
>> fetchindex' instead?  I'm sure I've read about the correct way to do so,
>> but it doesn't appear to be here:
>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsSubversionPrimer
>
> Subversion is not relevant; it has not changed the use of the
> index file. 'portversion' is part of the portupgrade port, and
> requires not just an index but its own database version of the
> index file. Building your own index will be slightly more
> accurate for what is actually on your box, but fetching it will
> be much faster and nearly always accurate enough.

Thanks for the insight!

-- 
Andre Goree
andre@drenet.info



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wusfniy3qdqf40>