Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>