Installation instructions for Firefox somewhere?

John jfm at
Sun Feb 27 05:18:28 GMT 2005

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:41:51 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote

> But I figured that if I always pull the index from an FTP site, it's
> guaranteed to be up to date.  Isn't that true?  

It guarantees that the index will be up-to-date [0]. The index is not the port

To be honest, I don't know the depths of how make index works. I just know
that make readmes or portupgrade will complain if I use a refuse file in
/usr/ports/sup and tell me to make index [1]. Beforehand, I used the refuse
file so I didn't have to cvsup stuff I wasn't going to install.

> I'm never going to
> install more than a small fraction of the ports, so putting the 
> entire tree on my site seems wasteful, especially if I have to constantly
> update it. 

I suppose I'm nit-picking here, but you would cron it rather than running it
by hand.

> I do have the tree on my production server, but only because
> I had a lot more disk space to play with.

How much space have you got to play with? If space is tight, running make
distclean after make install helps, as does periodically deleting the contents
of /usr/ports/distfiles

A refuse file would have helped you. Can anyone explain or point to a
reference as to why this no longer works? [2]

[0] if you mean, by "pull the index from an ftp site" cd /usr/ports && make index

[1] this behaviour started happening at 4.10 or thereabouts. I don't know why,
and I haven't had the time to research it.

[2] well, the refuse file works. But the fact that the ports tree has been
altered makes 'make readmes' complain.
lists at

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list