Hello, On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Parv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is your version of portupgrade is the latest in the ports? (So that > I can install the same & investigate.)
Yes - always. I think I even stated in my first message that the ports tree was updated. >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] portupgrade -R nasm pcre xterm mplayer gscan2pdf >> ImageMagick > > What are the exact names of the ports|packages installed? Many ways > to list; here is a simple one ... You mean with the version numbers? Any port names listed above or in my initial message re non-ambiguous. FWIW, I use /bin/sh as myt shell. Always. > Seems like portupgrade is dying when a port name-version format does > not match the expected regular expression. Or, the program > encounters a non-port string. It might be, but where does it encounter that problem? I have done 'pkgdb -F' - it didn't find any problems. And why doesn't portupgrade find the same problem with any individual port when I try portupgrade on them one-by-one? > If portupgrade is indeed successful individually for all the above > listed ports, then the second scenario is more likely (the "non-port > thing" one). Well, I can't understand where portupgrade picks up that from, unless there is a flaw / error in portupgrade itself. I am a quite experienced user of portupgrade (I have used it for many years), so let me put a few notes here: 1) ambiguous names - if given, portupgrade will ask which ones you want (eg. 'firefox') 2) non-existent names - portupgrade will skip those, like so: [EMAIL PROTECTED] portupgrade -R nonexistant [Exclude up-to-date packages done] 3) portupgrade used to have no problems with the way I am using it, ie. portupgrade -R port1 port2 port3 port4 ... Hope this helps. -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
