Re: perl-after-upgrade mistakenly thinks nothing needs to be done
Thanks for the replies; I really appreciate it.
Alexandre wrote:
> Have you followed steps described in perl-after-upgrade man page?
> $ man perl-after-upgrade
Yes, except for the last step (deleting old CONTENTS backups), since the
previous steps didn't seem to do what they should. As I said,
perl-after-upgrade thinks there's nothing to do. It doesn't report any
packages it can't handle. It handles them, but for some reason determines that
they are OK, despite the fact that the modules are all still sitting in the
old installation.
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> Have you done "portmaster 5-"?
> If not, do it.
I hadn't done that.
("portmaster 5-" doesn't work, but "portmaster p5-" does.)
UPDATING makes mention of this, but I didn't understand that it was saying it
was a required step. Specifically, this is what it says:
-
20120630:
AFFECTS: users of lang/perl*
AUTHOR: s...@freebsd.org
lang/perl5.16 is out. If you want to switch to it from, for example
lang/perl5.12, that is:
Portupgrade users:
0) Fix pkgdb.db (for safety):
pkgdb -Ff
1) Reinstall new version of Perl (5.16):
env DISABLE_CONFLICTS=1 portupgrade -o lang/perl5.16 -f perl-5.12.\*
2) Reinstall everything that depends on Perl:
portupgrade -fr perl
Portmaster users:
portmaster -o lang/perl5.16 lang/perl5.12
Conservative:
portmaster p5-
Comprehensive (but perhaps overkill):
portmaster -r perl-
Note: If the "perl-" glob matches more than one port you will need to
specify the name of the Perl directory in /var/db/pkg explicitly.
The default version for Perl has also been changed from 5.12 to 5.14.
-
Because of the way the portupgrade section is numbered, I thought the
portmaster section was giving me 3 options: regular, conservative,
comprehensive -- not two steps (1. portmaster -o, then 2. choose either the
conservative or comprehensive option).
...partly my reading comprehension failure, I guess. It makes no mention of
perl-after-upgrade, though.
My understanding is that perl-after-upgrade looks at what perl-dependent
packages are installed. As I can see by its output, this includes not just the
application packages like SpamAssassin and mrtg, but their requisite Perl
module packages as well, like HTML::Parser. Then, as these packages are found,
perl-after-upgrade moves things from the old Perl installation over to the
new, and does some other cleanup.
Maybe that's a flawed assumption, because it seems rather weird to me that
before running perl-after-upgrade, I'm expected to *first* to do a *full
upgrade or reinstall* of the modules.
Isn't that exactly what we're trying to avoid by running perl-after-upgrade?
Nothing in the perl-after-upgrade man page suggests this is necessary; in
fact, the intro implies the opposite.
> After this is done,
> how much have you got left under 5.12.4?
Not much of anything, just a man page, a few mrtg .pm files...
Naturally, running perl-after-upgrade at this point yields the same results as
before (0 moved, 0 modified, 0 adjusted for everything). But this time, that's
the expected output, I believe, given that I just reinstalled everything.
I guess I'm just completely confused about what perl-after-upgrade was
actually supposed to do, so it's difficult to suggest documentation updates.
At the very least, though, maybe change UPDATING to clarify that the
portmaster steps are a sequence, and mention perl-after-upgrade.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: EC2 Instances Future
On 04/11/13 15:43, Michael Sierchio wrote: I have constructed several AMIs. If I get a sense for which flavor of instance/OS combos are of interest, I can roll a few and make them available. I'd be more interested in a step by step How To so I could roll my own. I need to use EU instances because of data protection laws, and the Windows tax on micro instances in the EU is a huge 75%! On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Don O'Neil wrote: Have you made any AMI's based on this method? I would love to deploy a medium or large instance that isn't subject to the 'tax', but don't really know where to start to build one like this. -Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Michael Sierchio Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:05 PM To: jflowers Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EC2 Instances Future I still follow Colin's original pattern of using a minimal "Linux" grub boot EBS device (1GB), ext2fs, with the root partition being on another (ufs2) EBS device. This works very well, with a couple of caveats - - Install e2fsprogs (pkg or port) - you will need it, on occasion when modifying the boot device (after mounting rw). - Kernel upgrades are tricky, so be careful - Edit /etc/freebsd-update.conf intelligently to prevent unintended consequences Apart from that, I have been running i386 and amd64 instances this way, both 8.3 and 9.1, without difficulty (apart from some Xen clock weirdness in 8.3). No Windoze Tax. ;-) - M On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:05 AM, jflowers wrote: Is there anything likely to be available in the future (3 months to a year) to avoid the Windows tax on FreeBSD instances for the smaller (t1.micro, m1.small, m1.medium) types? I understand the problem but don't find anything much online about a possible solution. Probably because I don't understand as much as I think. Thanks. -- Jim Flowers ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: EC2 Instances Future
I personally need medium and large instances, but I would think others might need the tiny and small as well. Colin has published his for the cluster compute models, so I don't think there is need for that. Thanks! -Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Michael Sierchio Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:44 AM To: Don O'Neil Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EC2 Instances Future I have constructed several AMIs. If I get a sense for which flavor of instance/OS combos are of interest, I can roll a few and make them available. - M On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Don O'Neil wrote: > Have you made any AMI's based on this method? I would love to deploy a > medium or large instance that isn't subject to the 'tax', but don't > really know where to start to build one like this. > > -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Sierchio > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:05 PM > To: jflowers > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: EC2 Instances Future > > I still follow Colin's original pattern of using a minimal "Linux" > grub boot EBS device (1GB), ext2fs, with the root partition being on > another > (ufs2) EBS device. This works very well, with a couple of caveats - > > - Install e2fsprogs (pkg or port) - you will need it, on occasion when > modifying the boot device (after mounting rw). > > - Kernel upgrades are tricky, so be careful > > - Edit /etc/freebsd-update.conf intelligently to prevent unintended > consequences > > Apart from that, I have been running i386 and amd64 instances this > way, both > 8.3 and 9.1, without difficulty (apart from some Xen clock weirdness > in 8.3). > > No Windoze Tax. ;-) > > - M > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:05 AM, jflowers wrote: >> Is there anything likely to be available in the future (3 months to a >> year) to avoid the Windows tax on FreeBSD instances for the smaller >> (t1.micro, m1.small, m1.medium) types? I understand the problem but >> don't find anything much online about a possible solution. Probably >> because I don't understand as much as I think. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Jim Flowers >> >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: EC2 Instances Future
I have constructed several AMIs. If I get a sense for which flavor of instance/OS combos are of interest, I can roll a few and make them available. - M On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Don O'Neil wrote: > Have you made any AMI's based on this method? I would love to deploy a > medium or large instance that isn't subject to the 'tax', but don't really > know where to start to build one like this. > > -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Michael Sierchio > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:05 PM > To: jflowers > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: EC2 Instances Future > > I still follow Colin's original pattern of using a minimal "Linux" > grub boot EBS device (1GB), ext2fs, with the root partition being on another > (ufs2) EBS device. This works very well, with a couple of caveats - > > - Install e2fsprogs (pkg or port) - you will need it, on occasion when > modifying the boot device (after mounting rw). > > - Kernel upgrades are tricky, so be careful > > - Edit /etc/freebsd-update.conf intelligently to prevent unintended > consequences > > Apart from that, I have been running i386 and amd64 instances this way, both > 8.3 and 9.1, without difficulty (apart from some Xen clock weirdness in > 8.3). > > No Windoze Tax. ;-) > > - M > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:05 AM, jflowers wrote: >> Is there anything likely to be available in the future (3 months to a >> year) to avoid the Windows tax on FreeBSD instances for the smaller >> (t1.micro, m1.small, m1.medium) types? I understand the problem but >> don't find anything much online about a possible solution. Probably >> because I don't understand as much as I think. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Jim Flowers >> >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: perl-after-upgrade mistakenly thinks nothing needs to be done
Hi Mike, Have you followed steps described in perl-after-upgrade man page? $ man perl-after-upgrade Regards, Alexandre On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Mike Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm running 8.3-RELEASE and thought I'd update Perl from 5.12 to 5.16. > Silly me. I updated my ports snapshot, and as per UPDATING, ran > > portmaster -o lang/perl5.16 lang/perl5.12 > > This went OK, so I then ran perl-after-upgrade, with and without -f. It > scans > the packages and finds everything it should, but insists nothing needs to > be > done, saying " 0 moved, 0 modified, 0 adjusted" for every one of them. At > the > end it says "Fixed 0 packages (0 files moved, 0 files modified)". > > Well of course this isn't right; all my modules are still sitting in the > 5.12.4 directory and are not getting moved over to the 5.16.2 one. This > naturally breaks everything depending on those modules. > > What's going wrong? Sorry if this is a novice question. > > Please let me know what I need to check. Thanks, > > Mike > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: perl-after-upgrade mistakenly thinks nothing needs to be done
From: Mike Brown Subject: perl-after-upgrade mistakenly thinks nothing needs to be done To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:08:17 -0600 (MDT) Hi all, I'm running 8.3-RELEASE and thought I'd update Perl from 5.12 to 5.16. Silly me. I updated my ports snapshot, and as per UPDATING, ran portmaster -o lang/perl5.16 lang/perl5.12 This went OK, so I then ran perl-after-upgrade, with and without -f. It scans the packages and finds everything it should, but insists nothing needs to be done, saying " 0 moved, 0 modified, 0 adjusted" for every one of them. At the end it says "Fixed 0 packages (0 files moved, 0 files modified)". Well of course this isn't right; all my modules are still sitting in the 5.12.4 directory and are not getting moved over to the 5.16.2 one. This naturally breaks everything depending on those modules. What's going wrong? Sorry if this is a novice question. Please let me know what I need to check. Thanks, Mike Don't know the answer to your exact question. Have you done "portmaster 5-"? If not, do it. After this is done, how much have you got left under 5.12.4? Anton ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
perl-after-upgrade mistakenly thinks nothing needs to be done
Hi all, I'm running 8.3-RELEASE and thought I'd update Perl from 5.12 to 5.16. Silly me. I updated my ports snapshot, and as per UPDATING, ran portmaster -o lang/perl5.16 lang/perl5.12 This went OK, so I then ran perl-after-upgrade, with and without -f. It scans the packages and finds everything it should, but insists nothing needs to be done, saying " 0 moved, 0 modified, 0 adjusted" for every one of them. At the end it says "Fixed 0 packages (0 files moved, 0 files modified)". Well of course this isn't right; all my modules are still sitting in the 5.12.4 directory and are not getting moved over to the 5.16.2 one. This naturally breaks everything depending on those modules. What's going wrong? Sorry if this is a novice question. Please let me know what I need to check. Thanks, Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
