Central portindex'ing functional at the moment?

[Marko Käning]

On 29 Dec 2016, at 00:05 , Mojca Miklavec <mojca at macports.org> wrote:

> On 28 December 2016 at 23:59, Marko Käning wrote:
>> On 28 Dec 2016, at 23:18 , Marko Käning wrote:
>> 
>>> This way I shouldn’t get any shadowing…
>> 
>> Ha, and I wouldn’t see any updates of my local source either.
> 
> Exactly.

>> So, no, I have to have my local port sources in front of the default rsync’ed source,
>> if I am not completely mistaken. Shadowing is unavoidable then?!

Yeah, that’s even written as a comment in sources.conf, as I saw then… ;-)


> But one of the questions arises: why do you need the global index at all?

Well, I thought that an invalid index was preventing me from seeing the
the to-be-updated ports in my installations.


> In the times of subversion I had a sparse checkout with only the ports
> I was interested in.

Me too.


> Today I'm exercising a somewhat weird practice. I collect just a small
> number of symlinks to macports-ports from git in my local tree. I'm
> not too happy about this though, adding and removing symlinks is
> sometimes a bit annoying.

I have the full clone with all ports. The initial portindex run takes ages, subsequent
ones are then much faster.

Yet, this makes my default rsync’ed port tree unusable, as the git-clone is shadowing it
as a whole.

I didn’t want to go for the symlink juggling… But then I seem to have to live with the
fact that I can forget about 

   $ sudo port selfupdate && sudo port upgrade outdated

and rather always do a 

   $ git pull upstream master && portindex && sudo port upgrade outdated

instead.