Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:21:49 +0200 From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@lucky.net> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports CHANGES INDEX INDEX-5 Message-ID: <20041113182149.GB35929@lucky.net> In-Reply-To: <1100369141.8072.77.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <200411131016.iADAG6lG083848@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041113174113.GC76034@nevermind.kiev.ua> <1100368082.8072.72.camel@hood.oook.cz> <20041113175755.GA59121@nevermind.kiev.ua> <1100369141.8072.77.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 19:05:41, pav wrote about "Re: cvs commit: ports CHANGES INDEX INDEX-5": > Portupgrade behaves exactly as designed - it wants a fresh INDEX file. > I personally don't see why, but it's designed as that. There are several > ways to obtain a fresh INDEX file, mind you, you can download it from > the website using "make fetchindex" or you can rebuild it locally using > "make index", portupgrade chose to use the second way. And cvsup will delete INDEX each run? Even if not listed in checkouts, deleting checkouts (which is regular sanitation act) will lead to redeleting of INDEX. So, one need to rename rebuilded INDEX, do cvsup and rename it back? You advocate for too mad procedure. >> And take a note that a lot of people, who doesn't know if INDEX[-5] is >> needed or not needed by portupgrade will wast their time. >> >> I assume portupgrade is key port for FreeBSD system. > Yes, but still it's third-party software we can't modify directly. Yes, but for now this created unneeded period of brokenness. -netch-
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041113182149.GB35929>