Confused with Refuse

Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-local at be-well.ilk.org
Mon May 23 08:37:49 PDT 2005


Bob Perry <rperry at gti.net> writes:

> On Mon May 23 2005 9:30 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > Bob Perry <rperry at gti.net> writes:
> > > About to synch up the entire source tree with RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE. 
> > > Earlier I created a refuse file, (/var/db/sup/refuse), when I upgraded my
> > > doc and ports collection in 5.3 but remember reading somewhere that a
> > > refuse file was not necessarily recommended when updating an entire
> > > source tree.  Is that still the case?
> >
> > You may not be able to build your own INDEX, and dependency-tracking
> > packages may get confused if the INDEX doesn't match the installed
> > ports, but things won't necessarily break.  But you're on your own;
> > please don't report problems unless you know they occur with a fully
> > updated tree.
>  That's the sort of warning I remember.  Just couldn't readily understand why 
> the Handbook still recommends creating it.

It recommends refuse files for the doc tree, which is *very* useful,
because most users only want one language.  On the ports tree, it
mentions that some people do it, but doesn't recommend it as a general
policy.  It will work a lot of the time, and the ports makefiles warn
about having a complete ports collection before reporting certain
kinds of errors.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list