kris at obsecurity.org
Tue Jan 27 15:26:53 PST 2004
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:37:57PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2004 01:37 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:02:17PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
> > > > I always do a "make index" in the /usr/ports directory. Have I
> > > > been doing it wrong?
> > >
> > > No, I also use make index because historically there were
> > > significantly fewer error messages. I think someone almost got
> > > hysterical from surprise a short time ago when portsdb -U completed
> > > with out a single message.
> > >
> > > My attitude is that if Kris' script ran portsdb -U, then I would
> > > use it everytime I cvsup ports-all instead of using make index.
> > AFAIK portsdb -U just calls 'make index' internally. The difference
> > would then presumably be caused by the make environment: my index
> > build tests simulate a clean environment by defining LOCALBASE,
> > X11BASE, etc.
> That hasn't always been true. Make index would find 1 or 2 more ports
> than -U would. There are also times when make index falls flat and -U
> would still produce a useful INDEX. In addition, portsdb -U used to run
> quite a bit faster than make index did.
OK, it looks like (now?) it's rolling its own INDEX build in native
ruby. I'll take a look at it to see if it produces any different
results on a clean ports tree, and if so, why.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20040127/db34c174/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the freebsd-ports