Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:27:01 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap Message-ID: <20200809172701.7af573b1@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <5122e2d8-444c-3a76-038a-be84d38fc237@FreeBSD.org> References: <b920d0e6-72d3-b37c-e57e-6d027292e8db@FreeBSD.org> <1923096.4WAli8B44Z@walrus.pepperland> <5122e2d8-444c-3a76-038a-be84d38fc237@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:43:28 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 09/08/2020 07:03, Stefan Ehmann wrote: > > I usually run `pkg version` to see what packages have changed. > > > > Previously, that was a more or less instant operation, now it takes > > over 100 seconds. The problem is that /usr/ports/INDEX-12 is > > missing. > > Yes. For historical reason, the order of precedence for the source of > information about available packages that pkg(8) uses is: > > * INDEX file > * A checked-out copy of /usr/ports > * The pkg repository catalogue > > In my humble opinion, it's the third of those options that is actually > the best, both in terms of speed and accuracy. Inaccurate because the ports tree used to create the packages is typically a bit behind the current tree. What I'd like to see is a simple way to update the ports tree to match what was used to build the current packages in the repository. If you update most packages using pkg, but build a few locally, the difference in tree versions can cause problems.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200809172701.7af573b1>