Bob Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon May 23 2005 9:30 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > Bob Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"