Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:42:12 -0500
From:      parv <parv_fm@emailgroups.net>
To:        Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com>
Cc:        f-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: creating ports INDEX from actual installed ports
Message-ID:  <20021127234212.GA62251@moo.holy.cow>
In-Reply-To: <3DE54ED2.2080401@owt.com>
References:  <20021127045833.GA17350@moo.holy.cow> <5.2.0.9.2.20021126205857.00a7da30@pozo.com> <20021127200435.GB21971@moo.holy.cow> <3DE54ED2.2080401@owt.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
in message <3DE54ED2.2080401@owt.com>,
wrote Kent Stewart thusly...
>
> parv wrote:
...
> >...despite the errors, both indexes were made correctly.  that's
> >much more than that can be said about ports own index making.
> 
> I don't believe this statement. The INDEX created by "make index" is 
> ~30KB larger than the one created by portsdb -U. For example,
> 
> ruby# ll bak-make
> total 9568
> -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  3053030 Nov 27 14:56 INDEX
> -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  6723584 Nov 27 14:56 INDEX.db
> ruby# ll bak-portsdb
> total 9464
> -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  3023522 Nov 27 13:55 INDEX
> -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  6642688 Nov 27 13:55 INDEX.db


kent, in my situation where several of the ports/directories are
missing, "make index" is failing w/ "no entry" messages which
results in INDEX built only up to the last port which didn't cause
the "no entry" error messages.  in this situation, "make index"
creates INDEX much smaller than "portsdb -U".

until "make index" works for me, i can only take your word that
"portsdb -U" may not be producing the right INDEX.


  - parv

-- 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021127234212.GA62251>