Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:55:55 +0100 From: Christopher Illies <christopher.illies@molmed.ki.se> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Typo in: cache-update (portindex) - hangs(?) Message-ID: <20041213085555.GA828@Klabautermann.ks.se> In-Reply-To: <bc5b6385041212091967634bff@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041210135721.GA96968@Klabautermann.ks.se> <bc5b6385041210120033a1f90d@mail.gmail.com> <20041211122431.GA97596@Klabautermann.ks.se> <bc5b6385041212091967634bff@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Thanks for your reply and sorry for the typo. Yes cache-init also took > > a couple of hours on my computer, but when it finished i got the command-promt > > back. But I am having problems with cache-update. I include the last > > paragraphs of my original post with the typo corrected: > > > > for upating the portstree I do: > > # cvsup -g -L 2 ports-supfile > > # cache-update > > # portindex -o /usr/ports/INDEX-5 (I am using 5-stable) > > # portsdb -u (I am also using portupgrade) > > # portupgrade -arR (or whatever) > > What happens if you add > > # make fetchindex > > immediately after the cvsup? I just tried it and it does not change the behaviour of cache-update. cache-update still shows a short burst of activity before it becomes idle, but does not return to the command promt. But if I understand it correctly, isn't the whole purpose of the portindex-suite to provide yet another mechamism to create an up to date INDEX(-5) file, but both being faster than 'make index' (portsdb -U) and more up to date than 'make fetchindex'? So wouldn't the 'make fetchindex' kind of defeat the purpose of using portindex? Sorry, for all the questions, I am still trying to figure this all this out for myself. I am still quite unexperienced in FreeBSD .. ;-) Christopher
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041213085555.GA828>