portupgrade: installed package "succeeds port" ?

Kent Stewart kstewart at owt.com
Tue May 6 10:14:02 PDT 2003

On Tuesday 06 May 2003 05:58 am, Jim Trigg wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:08:55PM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> > Jim Trigg wrote:
> > > Actually, I've found that "cd /usr/ports; make index" is more
> > > reliable than "portsdb -U".
> >
> > Are you sure? "make index" runs for ever here!
> > On a 700 MHz Pentium III PC, it's already running for over an hour,
> > without any indication of doing something useful. The
> > /usr/ports/INDEX file has still size 0.
> >
> > portsdb -U also lasts for a long while, but at least finishes at
> > some point :).
> >
> > Or have I broken anything in the ports administration?
> > But what else is there than the INDEX file?
> In my experience, while make index takes longer than portsdb -U, it
> is more reliable.  (I have seen make index work when portsdb -U
> fails; I have never seen portsdb -U work when make index failed.)

Try both ways right now. Make index is experiencing massive failures. 
You get around 3600 ports in INDEX.db with make index and 8572 on a 
5-current system using portsdb -uU. There are usually a few differances 
between 4-stable and 5-current but never this many :).

You also can not typically do massive port refuses with make index. When 
make hits a area and fails, it just stops completely. Portsdb -U keeps 
on processing.


Kent Stewart
Richland, WA


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list