Kevin Oberman <rkober...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't rebuilding the index useful for people running STABLE? I assume that
> I need a current index to get useful output from "pkg version -vL=". I am
> probably a bit unusual in that I keep a current ports tre on a STABLE
> system, but there are a couple of ports that I need to build due to custom
> options and I find poudriere overkill for this case. I suspect many people
> running STABLE may use portsnap and build everything from ports. (This use
> to be common fairly recently and likely still is.)
I run stable, and compile from source with a current ports tree on all my
> Or, am I missing the obvious... something I seem to do too often these days.
... maybe I'm missing something that you haven't missed, which is more likely! :
I've already altered my portsnap.conf to only produce INDEX-10, and from what I
can gather, this is basically what Xin Li is proposing becomes the default...,
i.e. only produce INDEX-9 for 9.X, INDEX-10 for 10.X and INDEX-11 for 11.X
Isn't it the case that the index required is 'tuned' to the dependencies each
port requires based on base software (e.g. the index file on 10.X upwards won't
list a dependency on converters/libiconv) so even if you portsnap your ports
tree, it's still INDEX-10 you'd require on a FreeBSD-10.X machine..?
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"