Andre Goree wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:52:41 -0400, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>
>> On 29 March 2013 22:29, Andre Goree wrote:
>>
>>> I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up
>>>
>>>
>>> /usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using
>>>
>>> 'po
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:52:41 -0400, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 29 March 2013 22:29, Andre Goree wrote:
I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up
/usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using
'portversion'. This doesn't seem correct...and if
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:56:12 -0400, Lowell Gilbert
wrote:
Andre Goree writes:
I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up
/usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using
'portversion'. This doesn't seem correct...and if so portsnap would
seem l
Andre Goree writes:
> I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up
> /usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using
> 'portversion'. This doesn't seem correct...and if so portsnap would
> seem like a much better tool. Perhaps I should be running 'mak
On 29 March 2013 22:29, Andre Goree wrote:
> I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up
> /usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using
> 'portversion'. This doesn't seem correct...and if so portsnap would
> seem like a much better tool. Perhaps I
I seem to have to run 'make index' in /usr/ports after I've run 'svn up
/usr/ports' in order to see which ports need to be updated using
'portversion'. This doesn't seem correct...and if so portsnap would
seem like a much better tool. Perhaps I should be running 'make
fetchindex' instead? I'm su
