Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:50:19 -0800 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm@inbox.lv> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: INDEX[-5] files were removed from CVS. Message-ID: <200411131750.20211.ringworm@inbox.lv> In-Reply-To: <m3ekixjnve.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <20041113101925.GB70256@voodoo.oberon.net> <419655EB.8070506@gmx.net> <m3ekixjnve.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 13 November 2004 04:05 pm, Matthias Andree wrote: > 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. I learned to live without INDEX ages ago but I have an idea on how to easily help others who need it. Why not just make a port of the INDEX file then post a patch everyweek or two to keep it updated? -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200411131750.20211.ringworm>