Confused with Refuse
Bob Perry
rperry at gti.net
Mon May 23 21:59:49 PDT 2005
On Mon May 23 2005 11:37 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
Thanks again. I'll just use it for the doc tree for now.
Bob
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list