Re: Portupgrade problem
"Craig Deal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Lowell Gilbert > > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:39 PM > > To: Craig Deal > > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > Subject: Re: Portupgrade problem > > > > "Craig Deal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I installed portupgrade from packages today. Whenever I run > > > "portupgrade -arR" or "pkgdb -uvF" I get the following message: > > > > > > "/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libcrypt.so.3" not found, > > > required by "ruby18" > > > > > > I'm not sure what to do from here. I have "ruby-1.8.2_4" and > > > "ruby18-bdb1-0.2.2" installed from packages also. Any > > suggestions on > > > what to do from here? > > > > Wild guess: you installed a 6.0 package on a 5.4 system. > > ___ > > > Is that possible using "pkg_add -r portupgrade"? It shouldn't be. It looks like it can happen if you upgrade pkg_add or the kernel without the other, and occasional bugs do slip in. What does "uname -a" tell you? [This is almost always a good thing to include in your questions.] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade problem
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Lowell Gilbert > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:39 PM > To: Craig Deal > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Portupgrade problem > > "Craig Deal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I installed portupgrade from packages today. Whenever I run > > "portupgrade -arR" or "pkgdb -uvF" I get the following message: > > > > "/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libcrypt.so.3" not found, > > required by "ruby18" > > > > I'm not sure what to do from here. I have "ruby-1.8.2_4" and > > "ruby18-bdb1-0.2.2" installed from packages also. Any > suggestions on > > what to do from here? > > Wild guess: you installed a 6.0 package on a 5.4 system. > ___ Is that possible using "pkg_add -r portupgrade"? Craig ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade problem
"Craig Deal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I installed portupgrade from packages today. Whenever I run "portupgrade > -arR" or "pkgdb -uvF" I get the following message: > > "/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libcrypt.so.3" not found, required by > "ruby18" > > I'm not sure what to do from here. I have "ruby-1.8.2_4" and > "ruby18-bdb1-0.2.2" installed from packages also. Any suggestions on what to > do from here? Wild guess: you installed a 6.0 package on a 5.4 system. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade problem
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Huff > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:15 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Portupgrade problem > > > Craig Deal writes: > > > I installed portupgrade from packages today. Whenever I run > > "portupgrade -arR" or "pkgdb -uvF" I get the following message: > > > > "/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libcrypt.so.3" not found, > > required by "ruby18" > > Isn't libcrypt part of the base system? > > > Robert Huff > If it helps, libcrypto.so.3 is on the system, under /lib. Craig ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade: what must I fix in this pkgtools.conf entry?
On 10/19/05, James Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:29:45PM +0400, Andrew P. wrote: > > First, the other syntax seems much more readable: > > > > 'mplayer' => [ > >'WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes', > >'WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes', > > ], > > 'aumix*' => [ > >'WITH_GTK2=yes', > > ], > > > > Second, when portupgrade detects MAKE flags in > > pkgtools.conf, it tells you so: > > > > # portupgrade -f mplayer\* > > ** Custom MAKE_ARGS or -m option is specified > > (WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes > > WITH_GTK2=yes WITH_LIBDVDNAV=yes WITH_LIBUNGIF=yes WITH_ARTS=yes > > WITH_FRIBIDI=yes WITH_CDPARANOIA=yes WITH_LIBCACA=yes WITH_LIBDV=yes > > WITH_MAD=yes WITH_AALIB=yes WITH_THEORA=yes WITH_X264=yes WITH_SDL=yes > > WITH_ESOUND=yes WITH_VORBIS=yes WITH_XANIM=yes WITH_REALPLAYER=yes > > WITH_LIVEMEDIA=yes WITH_MATROSKA=yes WITH_XVID=yes WITH_LZO=yes > > WITH_XMMS=yes ) > > ** Skipping package > > ---> Using the port instead of a package > > ---> Reinstalling 'mplayer-gtk-esound-0.99.7_5' (multimedia/mplayer) > > ---> Building '/usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer' with make flags: > > WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes > > WITH_GTK2=yes WITH_LIBDVDNAV=yes WITH_LIBUNGIF=yes WITH_ARTS=yes > > WITH_FRIBIDI=yes WITH_CDPARANOIA=yes WITH_LIBCACA=yes WITH_LIBDV=yes > > WITH_MAD=yes WITH_AALIB=yes WITH_THEORA=yes WITH_X264=yes WITH_SDL=yes > > WITH_ESOUND=yes WITH_VORBIS=yes WITH_XANIM=yes WITH_REALPLAYER=yes > > WITH_LIVEMEDIA=yes WITH_MATROSKA=yes WITH_XVID=yes WITH_LZO=yes > > WITH_XMMS=yes > > <...> > > > > Third, your wildcard is wrong. There's no ImageMagick-*, > > there's only ImageMagick. > > Thank you for your reply. My mistake with the wildcard was thinking > that I had to supply a regexp to match the full "portname-version_info" > rather than just the name of the port itself. One of the examples in > pkgtools.conf is "apache-1.3.*" and Ms. Lavigne's article (cf. > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/09/18/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=2) > also uses a "-*" wildcard, although at second reading, there is no real > indication of why the author uses the wildcard. > > Because the ImageMagick port name can change based on build options, I > have changed the wildcard to "ImageMagick*". Note this dialogue: > > # portupgrade -N ImageMagick > (portupgrade successfully finds the build args in pkgtools.conf, and > builds and installs the port) > > # portupgrade -n ImageMagick > ---> Session started at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:39:33 -0700 > ** No such installed package: ImageMagick > ** None has been installed or upgraded. > ---> Session ended at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:39:33 -0700 (consumed 00:00:00) > > Here we see that despite building successfully, an immediately subsequent > upgrade of the same portname fails, with portupgrade claiming that the > port is not installed. However, > > # portupgrade -n ImageMagick-nox11 > ---> Session started at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:46:22 -0700 > ** No need to upgrade 'ImageMagick-nox11-6.2.2.1' (>= > ImageMagick-nox11-6.2.2.1). (specify -f to force) > ---> Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed) > - graphics/ImageMagick (ImageMagick-nox11-6.2.2.1) > ---> Packages processed: 0 done, 1 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed > ---> Session ended at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:46:26 -0700 (consumed 00:00:04) > > Thus, I have left the wildcard in pkgtools.conf as 'graphics/ImageMagick*' > so that it will match both the "ImageMagick" port and the "ImageMagick-nox11" > port. > > Thanks again for pointing me towards the wildcard. > > Jim > > Over time, you'll realise that a port name doesn't change, a package name does. 'category/port' references port name only, but when you omit category, portupgrade will match against both packagenames and portnames. Ports documentation is still not very clear, but reading ports manpage, bsd.port.mk, Porter's Handbook and many sample Makefiles should give you comprehensive understanding of the whole system. It's really well-crafted. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade: what must I fix in this pkgtools.conf entry?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:29:45PM +0400, Andrew P. wrote: > First, the other syntax seems much more readable: > > 'mplayer' => [ >'WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes', >'WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes', > ], > 'aumix*' => [ >'WITH_GTK2=yes', > ], > > Second, when portupgrade detects MAKE flags in > pkgtools.conf, it tells you so: > > # portupgrade -f mplayer\* > ** Custom MAKE_ARGS or -m option is specified > (WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes > WITH_GTK2=yes WITH_LIBDVDNAV=yes WITH_LIBUNGIF=yes WITH_ARTS=yes > WITH_FRIBIDI=yes WITH_CDPARANOIA=yes WITH_LIBCACA=yes WITH_LIBDV=yes > WITH_MAD=yes WITH_AALIB=yes WITH_THEORA=yes WITH_X264=yes WITH_SDL=yes > WITH_ESOUND=yes WITH_VORBIS=yes WITH_XANIM=yes WITH_REALPLAYER=yes > WITH_LIVEMEDIA=yes WITH_MATROSKA=yes WITH_XVID=yes WITH_LZO=yes > WITH_XMMS=yes ) > ** Skipping package > ---> Using the port instead of a package > ---> Reinstalling 'mplayer-gtk-esound-0.99.7_5' (multimedia/mplayer) > ---> Building '/usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer' with make flags: > WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes > WITH_GTK2=yes WITH_LIBDVDNAV=yes WITH_LIBUNGIF=yes WITH_ARTS=yes > WITH_FRIBIDI=yes WITH_CDPARANOIA=yes WITH_LIBCACA=yes WITH_LIBDV=yes > WITH_MAD=yes WITH_AALIB=yes WITH_THEORA=yes WITH_X264=yes WITH_SDL=yes > WITH_ESOUND=yes WITH_VORBIS=yes WITH_XANIM=yes WITH_REALPLAYER=yes > WITH_LIVEMEDIA=yes WITH_MATROSKA=yes WITH_XVID=yes WITH_LZO=yes > WITH_XMMS=yes > <...> > > Third, your wildcard is wrong. There's no ImageMagick-*, > there's only ImageMagick. Thank you for your reply. My mistake with the wildcard was thinking that I had to supply a regexp to match the full "portname-version_info" rather than just the name of the port itself. One of the examples in pkgtools.conf is "apache-1.3.*" and Ms. Lavigne's article (cf. http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/09/18/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=2) also uses a "-*" wildcard, although at second reading, there is no real indication of why the author uses the wildcard. Because the ImageMagick port name can change based on build options, I have changed the wildcard to "ImageMagick*". Note this dialogue: # portupgrade -N ImageMagick (portupgrade successfully finds the build args in pkgtools.conf, and builds and installs the port) # portupgrade -n ImageMagick ---> Session started at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:39:33 -0700 ** No such installed package: ImageMagick ** None has been installed or upgraded. ---> Session ended at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:39:33 -0700 (consumed 00:00:00) Here we see that despite building successfully, an immediately subsequent upgrade of the same portname fails, with portupgrade claiming that the port is not installed. However, # portupgrade -n ImageMagick-nox11 ---> Session started at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:46:22 -0700 ** No need to upgrade 'ImageMagick-nox11-6.2.2.1' (>= ImageMagick-nox11-6.2.2.1). (specify -f to force) ---> Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed) - graphics/ImageMagick (ImageMagick-nox11-6.2.2.1) ---> Packages processed: 0 done, 1 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed ---> Session ended at: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:46:26 -0700 (consumed 00:00:04) Thus, I have left the wildcard in pkgtools.conf as 'graphics/ImageMagick*' so that it will match both the "ImageMagick" port and the "ImageMagick-nox11" port. Thanks again for pointing me towards the wildcard. Jim ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade: what must I fix in this pkgtools.conf entry?
On 10/16/05, James Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been aware of pkgtools.conf but hadn't buckled down to suss out the
> syntax
> prior to recently. Thanks to Dru Lavigne's excellent article at onlamp.com,
> I'm
> working on my first attempt at setting make variables in pkgtools.conf.
>
> First, is there something I've specified incorrectly in my pkgtools.conf
> (below)?
> More generally, I haven't found anything in the portupgrade man page that
> would
> describe a switch that would cause portupgrade to output an indication of what
> configuration information it might have parsed from pkgtools.conf, that would
> help me figure out (sooner in the build process) whether portupgrade is
> parsing
> my pkgtools.conf successfully. Is there some way to make portupgrade be
> verbose
> about what actions it is taking based on pkgtools.conf directives?
>
> Here is the MAKE_ARGS section of /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf:
>
> MAKE_ARGS = {
> 'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
> WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
> }
>
> According to my reading of the Makefile, eliminating TTF and PDF support
> ought to
> be sufficient to eliminate the need for ghostscript, but still, "portupgrade
> -N
> ImageMagick" wants to build ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 as a dependency.
>
> ns : 22:41:38 /root# ls -l /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 13872 Oct 15 21:42 /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
>
> ns : 22:41:45 /root# grep -1 Magick /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
> MAKE_ARGS = {
> 'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
> WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
> }
>
> Everything else in pkgtools.conf is stock:
>
> ns : 22:47:01 /root# diff /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf.sample
> /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
> 310a311
> > 'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
> > WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
>
> After completing a CVS update of my ports tree at 23:08 PDT 10/15/05,
> portupgrade shows all the rest of my ports are up to date.
>
> All of this is on 5.4-STABLE circa 10/1/05.
>
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
First, the other syntax seems much more readable:
'mplayer' => [
'WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes',
'WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes',
],
'aumix*' => [
'WITH_GTK2=yes',
],
Second, when portupgrade detects MAKE flags in
pkgtools.conf, it tells you so:
# portupgrade -f mplayer\*
** Custom MAKE_ARGS or -m option is specified
(WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes
WITH_GTK2=yes WITH_LIBDVDNAV=yes WITH_LIBUNGIF=yes WITH_ARTS=yes
WITH_FRIBIDI=yes WITH_CDPARANOIA=yes WITH_LIBCACA=yes WITH_LIBDV=yes
WITH_MAD=yes WITH_AALIB=yes WITH_THEORA=yes WITH_X264=yes WITH_SDL=yes
WITH_ESOUND=yes WITH_VORBIS=yes WITH_XANIM=yes WITH_REALPLAYER=yes
WITH_LIVEMEDIA=yes WITH_MATROSKA=yes WITH_XVID=yes WITH_LZO=yes
WITH_XMMS=yes )
** Skipping package
---> Using the port instead of a package
---> Reinstalling 'mplayer-gtk-esound-0.99.7_5' (multimedia/mplayer)
---> Building '/usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer' with make flags:
WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes WITHOUT_RUNTIME_CPUDETECTION=yes
WITH_GTK2=yes WITH_LIBDVDNAV=yes WITH_LIBUNGIF=yes WITH_ARTS=yes
WITH_FRIBIDI=yes WITH_CDPARANOIA=yes WITH_LIBCACA=yes WITH_LIBDV=yes
WITH_MAD=yes WITH_AALIB=yes WITH_THEORA=yes WITH_X264=yes WITH_SDL=yes
WITH_ESOUND=yes WITH_VORBIS=yes WITH_XANIM=yes WITH_REALPLAYER=yes
WITH_LIVEMEDIA=yes WITH_MATROSKA=yes WITH_XVID=yes WITH_LZO=yes
WITH_XMMS=yes
<...>
Third, your wildcard is wrong. There's no ImageMagick-*,
there's only ImageMagick.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade stale dependencies
On 10/18/05, John DeStefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/15/05, Andrew P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/16/05, John DeStefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm trying to use portupgrade to update my installed ports. I ran into > > > trouble with dependencies with ImageMagick and xorg-libraries, and I then > > > followed the suggestion in UPDATING to delete XFree86 the imake-4 > > > packages, > > > and install the full xorg port. > > > > > > After all that, I got more dependency errors: > > > 'Stale dependency: aalib-1.4.r5_1 --> imake-4.3.0_1 -- manually run 'pkgdb > > > -F' to fix, or specify -O to force.' > > > > > > 'pkgdb -O' returned an invalid option error, and 'pkgdb -o aalib-1.4.r5_1' > > > returned 'graphics/aalib'. I then ran 'pkgdb -F' to try and fix this (and > > > many, many other) stale dependencies, but the error I got when trying to > > > run > > > portupgrade afterward simply changed the stale dependency error to ' > > > aalib-1.4.r5_1 --> XFree86-libraries-4.3.0_6'. > > > > > > How does one get around these dependency errors without destroying a > > > system? > > > Any good resources on dealing with this? I keep reading that I should just > > > run 'pkgdb -F' but that only gets one so far. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > ~John > > > ___ > > > > > > > > > > If you don't have a whole free week, consider > > deinstalling every port on your system (with > > pkg_deinstall preferably), installing cvsup, > > updating your ports tree, installing portupgrade, > > and portinstalling all the ports you really need. > > That should only take a couple of days :-) > > > > You're not kidding... between fixing these dependencies, trying to > upgrade the ports, fixing more dependencies, upgrading ports, etc. ad > nausem, I'm literally on my 9th straight day (obviously I don't mean > 24/7... I have a day job and something of a life) of trying to get > through this process. > > And all this just because I wanted to install mbstring (so phpMyadmin > would stop barking about it), and I needed to perform some "simple > updates" first... > > Any pointers, alternatives, etc., would be appreciated. > > BTW, I can no longer automatically update my ports list (I mean with > 'portsdb -Uu' instead of fetching a premade index) due to a > "chinese/acroread-chsfont failed" error. I see via Google that this > port was removed due to a "security vulnerability", but I don't know > how to remove it from my system, and UPDATING doesn't seem to mention > it. Help? > > Thanks, > ~John > Either cvsup or portsnap extract should remove it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade stale dependencies
On 10/15/05, Andrew P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/16/05, John DeStefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm trying to use portupgrade to update my installed ports. I ran into > > trouble with dependencies with ImageMagick and xorg-libraries, and I then > > followed the suggestion in UPDATING to delete XFree86 the imake-4 packages, > > and install the full xorg port. > > > > After all that, I got more dependency errors: > > 'Stale dependency: aalib-1.4.r5_1 --> imake-4.3.0_1 -- manually run 'pkgdb > > -F' to fix, or specify -O to force.' > > > > 'pkgdb -O' returned an invalid option error, and 'pkgdb -o aalib-1.4.r5_1' > > returned 'graphics/aalib'. I then ran 'pkgdb -F' to try and fix this (and > > many, many other) stale dependencies, but the error I got when trying to run > > portupgrade afterward simply changed the stale dependency error to ' > > aalib-1.4.r5_1 --> XFree86-libraries-4.3.0_6'. > > > > How does one get around these dependency errors without destroying a system? > > Any good resources on dealing with this? I keep reading that I should just > > run 'pkgdb -F' but that only gets one so far. > > > > Thanks, > > ~John > > ___ > > > > > > If you don't have a whole free week, consider > deinstalling every port on your system (with > pkg_deinstall preferably), installing cvsup, > updating your ports tree, installing portupgrade, > and portinstalling all the ports you really need. > That should only take a couple of days :-) > You're not kidding... between fixing these dependencies, trying to upgrade the ports, fixing more dependencies, upgrading ports, etc. ad nausem, I'm literally on my 9th straight day (obviously I don't mean 24/7... I have a day job and something of a life) of trying to get through this process. And all this just because I wanted to install mbstring (so phpMyadmin would stop barking about it), and I needed to perform some "simple updates" first... Any pointers, alternatives, etc., would be appreciated. BTW, I can no longer automatically update my ports list (I mean with 'portsdb -Uu' instead of fetching a premade index) due to a "chinese/acroread-chsfont failed" error. I see via Google that this port was removed due to a "security vulnerability", but I don't know how to remove it from my system, and UPDATING doesn't seem to mention it. Help? Thanks, ~John ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade: what must I fix in this pkgtools.conf entry?
James Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been aware of pkgtools.conf but hadn't buckled down to suss out the
> syntax
> prior to recently. Thanks to Dru Lavigne's excellent article at onlamp.com,
> I'm
> working on my first attempt at setting make variables in pkgtools.conf.
>
> First, is there something I've specified incorrectly in my pkgtools.conf
> (below)?
> More generally, I haven't found anything in the portupgrade man page that
> would
> describe a switch that would cause portupgrade to output an indication of what
> configuration information it might have parsed from pkgtools.conf, that would
> help me figure out (sooner in the build process) whether portupgrade is
> parsing
> my pkgtools.conf successfully. Is there some way to make portupgrade be
> verbose
> about what actions it is taking based on pkgtools.conf directives?
>
> Here is the MAKE_ARGS section of /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf:
>
> MAKE_ARGS = {
> 'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
> WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
> }
>
> According to my reading of the Makefile, eliminating TTF and PDF support
> ought to
> be sufficient to eliminate the need for ghostscript, but still, "portupgrade
> -N
> ImageMagick" wants to build ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 as a dependency.
>
> ns : 22:41:38 /root# ls -l /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 13872 Oct 15 21:42 /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
>
> ns : 22:41:45 /root# grep -1 Magick /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
> MAKE_ARGS = {
> 'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
> WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
> }
>
> Everything else in pkgtools.conf is stock:
>
> ns : 22:47:01 /root# diff /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf.sample
> /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
> 310a311
> > 'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
> > WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
>
> After completing a CVS update of my ports tree at 23:08 PDT 10/15/05,
> portupgrade shows all the rest of my ports are up to date.
>
> All of this is on 5.4-STABLE circa 10/1/05.
Offhand, I can't follow all of the ghostscript logic, so you might try
adding WITHOUT_GHOSTSCRIPT.
Also, it might be an indirect dependency. Is one of the other
dependencies pulling it in?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade: what must I fix in this pkgtools.conf entry?
On 10/15/2005 11:17 PM James Long wrote:
I've been aware of pkgtools.conf but hadn't buckled down to suss out the syntax
prior to recently. Thanks to Dru Lavigne's excellent article at onlamp.com, I'm
working on my first attempt at setting make variables in pkgtools.conf.
First, is there something I've specified incorrectly in my pkgtools.conf
(below)?
More generally, I haven't found anything in the portupgrade man page that would
describe a switch that would cause portupgrade to output an indication of what
configuration information it might have parsed from pkgtools.conf, that would
help me figure out (sooner in the build process) whether portupgrade is parsing
my pkgtools.conf successfully. Is there some way to make portupgrade be verbose
about what actions it is taking based on pkgtools.conf directives?
Here is the MAKE_ARGS section of /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf:
MAKE_ARGS = {
'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
}
According to my reading of the Makefile, eliminating TTF and PDF support ought to
be sufficient to eliminate the need for ghostscript, but still, "portupgrade -N
ImageMagick" wants to build ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 as a dependency.
ns : 22:41:38 /root# ls -l /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
-r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 13872 Oct 15 21:42 /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
ns : 22:41:45 /root# grep -1 Magick /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
MAKE_ARGS = {
'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
}
Everything else in pkgtools.conf is stock:
ns : 22:47:01 /root# diff /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf
310a311
'graphics/ImageMagick-*' => 'WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_TTF=1
WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PDF=1 WITHOUT_X11=1 WITHOUT_IMAGEMAGICK_PERL=1',
^^^
If this is your entire 'MAKE_ARGS' line, you don't need a "," at the
end. I'm just guessing but maybe the "," is causing the line not to
parse properly.
Good luck,
Drew
--
Visit The Alchemist's Warehouse
Magic Tricks, DVDs, Videos, Books, & More!
http://www.alchemistswarehouse.com
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade -ar (why?)
Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/16/05, Peter Matulis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- "Andrew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly guys, what is this thread about?
Hum, understanding something?
You're not gonna make portupgrade work any faster or
smoother if you weed out a couple of switches from the
command-line.
See above.
I don't mean to bother anyone if you're
having fun, but it just seems that portupgrade's manpage
covers it all.
Ha, I knew a manpage guy would come around sooner or later. Don't
you think I read it already? I have questions it does not cover.
If you're not sure - just try it. If something's
strange - see if it's a bug, and if you're sure it is - send-pr.
I can use all the switches if I want. The entire alphabet soup.
But that won't help me understand what is happening. I am not
satisfied with not "seeing something strange".
__
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Yeah, right. Maybe we could get together some time
and understand what's happening over a cup of tea.
Anyway. I don't know ruby at all. In fact, I don't know
any programming language very well at all.
% more `which portupgrade`
opts.def_option("-a", "--all",
"Do with all the installed packages") {
|$all|
$recursive = false
$upward_recursive = false
}
opts.def_option("-r", "--recursive",
"Do with all those depending on the given
packages" << NEXTLINE <<
"as well") {
$recursive = true unless $all
}
opts.def_option("-R", "--upward-recursive",
"Do with all those required by the given packages"
<< NEXTLINE <<
"as well / Fetch recursively if -F is specified") {
$upward_recursive = true unless $all
$fetch_recursive = true
}
Fortunately, my somewhat basic English allows me
to understand it. Now what part of that is not covered
by the manpage?
Look at it again. Unless I'm completely off, -a and -r are mutually
exclusive. All sets $all and sets $recurse to false. -r only sets
$recurse if $all is not set. So if -a is specified you'll never get a
recurse. So the original question still stands - why use -r when you've
used -a?
Later,
Micah
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade -ar (why?)
On 10/16/05, Peter Matulis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- "Andrew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Honestly guys, what is this thread about?
>
> Hum, understanding something?
>
> > You're not gonna make portupgrade work any faster or
> > smoother if you weed out a couple of switches from the
> > command-line.
>
> See above.
>
> > I don't mean to bother anyone if you're
> > having fun, but it just seems that portupgrade's manpage
> > covers it all.
>
> Ha, I knew a manpage guy would come around sooner or later. Don't
> you think I read it already? I have questions it does not cover.
>
> > If you're not sure - just try it. If something's
> > strange - see if it's a bug, and if you're sure it is - send-pr.
>
> I can use all the switches if I want. The entire alphabet soup.
> But that won't help me understand what is happening. I am not
> satisfied with not "seeing something strange".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
>
Yeah, right. Maybe we could get together some time
and understand what's happening over a cup of tea.
Anyway. I don't know ruby at all. In fact, I don't know
any programming language very well at all.
% more `which portupgrade`
opts.def_option("-a", "--all",
"Do with all the installed packages") {
|$all|
$recursive = false
$upward_recursive = false
}
opts.def_option("-r", "--recursive",
"Do with all those depending on the given
packages" << NEXTLINE <<
"as well") {
$recursive = true unless $all
}
opts.def_option("-R", "--upward-recursive",
"Do with all those required by the given packages"
<< NEXTLINE <<
"as well / Fetch recursively if -F is specified") {
$upward_recursive = true unless $all
$fetch_recursive = true
}
Fortunately, my somewhat basic English allows me
to understand it. Now what part of that is not covered
by the manpage?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade -ar (why?)
--- "Andrew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Honestly guys, what is this thread about? Hum, understanding something? > You're not gonna make portupgrade work any faster or > smoother if you weed out a couple of switches from the > command-line. See above. > I don't mean to bother anyone if you're > having fun, but it just seems that portupgrade's manpage > covers it all. Ha, I knew a manpage guy would come around sooner or later. Don't you think I read it already? I have questions it does not cover. > If you're not sure - just try it. If something's > strange - see if it's a bug, and if you're sure it is - send-pr. I can use all the switches if I want. The entire alphabet soup. But that won't help me understand what is happening. I am not satisfied with not "seeing something strange". __ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade stale dependencies
On 10/16/05, John DeStefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm trying to use portupgrade to update my installed ports. I ran into > trouble with dependencies with ImageMagick and xorg-libraries, and I then > followed the suggestion in UPDATING to delete XFree86 the imake-4 packages, > and install the full xorg port. > > After all that, I got more dependency errors: > 'Stale dependency: aalib-1.4.r5_1 --> imake-4.3.0_1 -- manually run 'pkgdb > -F' to fix, or specify -O to force.' > > 'pkgdb -O' returned an invalid option error, and 'pkgdb -o aalib-1.4.r5_1' > returned 'graphics/aalib'. I then ran 'pkgdb -F' to try and fix this (and > many, many other) stale dependencies, but the error I got when trying to run > portupgrade afterward simply changed the stale dependency error to ' > aalib-1.4.r5_1 --> XFree86-libraries-4.3.0_6'. > > How does one get around these dependency errors without destroying a system? > Any good resources on dealing with this? I keep reading that I should just > run 'pkgdb -F' but that only gets one so far. > > Thanks, > ~John > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > If you don't have a whole free week, consider deinstalling every port on your system (with pkg_deinstall preferably), installing cvsup, updating your ports tree, installing portupgrade, and portinstalling all the ports you really need. That should only take a couple of days :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade -ar (why?)
On 10/16/05, Peter Matulis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Uninstalled dependancies of an installed port are irrelevant in > > any portupgrade case, as the port will automatically pull them in > as > > part of its compilation. > > What if a port now has a new dependency? > > But back to 'r', > > My system shows this: > > --- > $ pkg_info -xR openldap > Information for openldap-client-2.2.29: > > Required by: > bluefish-1.0.4 > dirmngr-0.9.2 > gnome-menus-2.10.2_1 > gnomevfs2-2.10.1_1 > gnupg-devel-1.9.19 > gtksourceview-1.2.1 > libbonoboui-2.10.1 > libgnomeui-2.10.1_1 > rox-2.3 > samba-libsmbclient-3.0.20_2 > --- > > Just to be clear on this, if I do... > > # portupgrade -r openldap-client > > ...all those listed ports will be recompiled whether they need to be > or not? That seems mighty inefficient. > > > > > > > __ > Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > No, they won't. Honestly guys, what is this thread about? You're not gonna make portupgrade work any faster or smoother if you weed out a couple of switches from the command-line. I don't mean to bother anyone if you're having fun, but it just seems that portupgrade's manpage covers it all. If you're not sure - just try it. If something's strange - see if it's a bug, and if you're sure it is - send-pr. chat@ is the right place for topics like this one.. Cheerz, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: portupgrade -ar (why?)
--- Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uninstalled dependancies of an installed port are irrelevant in > any portupgrade case, as the port will automatically pull them in as > part of its compilation. What if a port now has a new dependency? But back to 'r', My system shows this: --- $ pkg_info -xR openldap Information for openldap-client-2.2.29: Required by: bluefish-1.0.4 dirmngr-0.9.2 gnome-menus-2.10.2_1 gnomevfs2-2.10.1_1 gnupg-devel-1.9.19 gtksourceview-1.2.1 libbonoboui-2.10.1 libgnomeui-2.10.1_1 rox-2.3 samba-libsmbclient-3.0.20_2 --- Just to be clear on this, if I do... # portupgrade -r openldap-client ...all those listed ports will be recompiled whether they need to be or not? That seems mighty inefficient. __ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: portupgrade -ar (why?)
Peter Matulis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The -a switch will upgrade a port only if its version number has >> increased (as you know). >> >> The -r switch will upgrade a port if one of its dependancies has been >> upgraded, regardless of whether its version number has changed or >> not. >> >> e.g. >> >> Appbar-1.0 depends on libfoo-1.0. Libfoo gets a portbump to 1.1. >> portupgrade -r libfoo will install libfoo-1.1, plus also force a >> recompile and reinstallation of appbar-1.0, irrespective of the fact >> that appbar's version remains the same. Thus, any ABI changes that >> happened in libfoo that could potentially break appbar that was >> compiled/linked against the previous version are limited. >> >> In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a problem. ABIs and APIs >> should remain constant, until a library revision bump (i.e., if >> libfoo.1's ABI changed and broke apps, it shoulda been bumped to > libfoo.2). > Most times you can get away with not recompiling a > port's dependants >> because developers, but if you don't then it can shoot you in the >> foot (read the recent list archives regarding openssl-0.9.8 to see >> an example of this). > > Thank you very much (BTW, there is something missing in your last > sentence). > ..because developers mostly take ABI breakage into account and tend not to do it on minor versions, but if you don't... > One last thing. Is this the case with the 'R' switch as well? > > > Well, the -R switch won't force anything to upgrade if it's already at the latest version. AFAIK (someone please correct me on this if I'm wrong) it is pointless to use it with the -a switch as -a by its very nature is upgrading anything that needs upgrading anyway, which includes any dependancies of a port, and AFAIK -a will sort the upgrades so that dependancies are done before upgrades (thus, 'portupgrade -a' is functionally equivalent to 'portupgrade -R *'). Uninstalled dependancies of an installed port are irrelevant in any portupgrade case, as the port will automatically pull them in as part of its compilation. Petersen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: portupgrade -ar (why?)
--- Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But still, a port requires upgrading or it does not. Using 'r', > > portupgrade ultimately checks whether some port should be > upgraded. > > Are you saying that the 'r' switch involves a different decision > > making process than 'a'? > > > > The -a switch will upgrade a port only if its version number has > increased (as you know). > > The -r switch will upgrade a port if one of its dependancies has > been > upgraded, regardless of whether its version number has changed or > not. > > e.g. > > Appbar-1.0 depends on libfoo-1.0. Libfoo gets a portbump to 1.1. > portupgrade -r libfoo will install libfoo-1.1, plus also force a > recompile and reinstallation of appbar-1.0, irrespective of the > fact > that appbar's version remains the same. Thus, any ABI changes that > happened in libfoo that could potentially break appbar that was > compiled/linked against the previous version are limited. > > In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a problem. ABIs and APIs > should remain constant, until a library revision bump (i.e., if > libfoo.1's ABI changed and broke apps, it shoulda been bumped to libfoo.2). > Most times you can get away with not recompiling a port's dependants > because developers, but if you don't then it can shoot you in the foot > (read the recent list archives regarding openssl-0.9.8 to see an example of > this). Thank you very much (BTW, there is something missing in your last sentence). One last thing. Is this the case with the 'R' switch as well? __ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: portupgrade -ar (why?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote: > --- Jan Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Peter Matulis wrote: >> >>> What is the use of specifying the 'r' switch when using the 'a' >>> switch? >>> >>> # portupgrade -ar >>> >>> This says to upgrade all ports plus the ones that depend on all >>> those ports. Am I missing something? Wouldn't "the ones that >>> depend" be upgraded anyway? >> >> Not necessarily. For instance: package P might use library L. A >> change in L might alter the size and layout of structures exposed to >> P. The source-level API of L is unchanged; the binary-level ABI is >> altered. So whilst the source code of P might not have changed, it >> might (for instance) be using a macro defined by a header in L that >> will look at the wrong offset in the new structure. These kinds of >> ABI compatibility problems can be fixed by recompilihng P. > > But still, a port requires upgrading or it does not. Using 'r', > portupgrade ultimately checks whether some port should be upgraded. > Are you saying that the 'r' switch involves a different decision > making process than 'a'? > > The -a switch will upgrade a port only if its version number has increased (as you know). The -r switch will upgrade a port if one of its dependancies has been upgraded, regardless of whether its version number has changed or not. e.g. Appbar-1.0 depends on libfoo-1.0. Libfoo gets a portbump to 1.1. portupgrade -r libfoo will install libfoo-1.1, plus also force a recompile and reinstallation of appbar-1.0, irrespective of the fact that appbar's version remains the same. Thus, any ABI changes that happened in libfoo that could potentially break appbar that was compiled/linked against the previous version are limited. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a problem. ABIs and APIs should remain constant, until a library revision bump (i.e., if libfoo.1's ABI changed and broke apps, it shoulda been bumped to libfoo.2). Most times you can get away with not recompiling a port's dependants because developers, but if you don't then it can shoot you in the foot (read the recent list archives regarding openssl-0.9.8 to see an example of this). Petersen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade -ar (why?)
--- Jan Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Peter Matulis wrote: > > > What is the use of specifying the 'r' switch when using the 'a' > > switch? > > > > # portupgrade -ar > > > > This says to upgrade all ports plus the ones that depend on all > > those ports. Am I missing something? Wouldn't "the ones that > > depend" be upgraded anyway? > > Not necessarily. For instance: package P might use library L. A > change in L might alter the size and layout of structures exposed to P. > The source-level API of L is unchanged; the binary-level ABI is > altered. So whilst the source code of P might not have changed, it might (for > instance) be using a macro defined by a header in L that will look > at the wrong offset in the new structure. These kinds of ABI > compatibility problems can be fixed by recompilihng P. But still, a port requires upgrading or it does not. Using 'r', portupgrade ultimately checks whether some port should be upgraded. Are you saying that the 'r' switch involves a different decision making process than 'a'? __ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade -ar (why?)
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Peter Matulis wrote: > What is the use of specifying the 'r' switch when using the 'a' > switch? > > # portupgrade -ar > > This says to upgrade all ports plus the ones that depend on all > those ports. Am I missing something? Wouldn't "the ones that > depend" be upgraded anyway? Not necessarily. For instance: package P might use library L. A change in L might alter the size and layout of structures exposed to P. The source-level API of L is unchanged; the binary-level ABI is altered. So whilst the source code of P might not have changed, it might (for instance) be using a macro defined by a header in L that will look at the wrong offset in the new structure. These kinds of ABI compatibility problems can be fixed by recompilihng P. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Strive to live every day as though it was last Wednesday. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade + make_ports.sh: Fixing everything in one go
Micah wrote: Fafa Hafiz Krantz wrote: Hello! I thought I'd ask you all if my make_ports.sh is as convenient as I think it is, or if it's totally off track or what not: # cat make_ports.sh cvsup -g -L 2 /etc/cvsupfile cd /usr/ports make fetchindex portupgrade -raP portsdb -uU Not the answer to your main question but you only need portsdb -u after you use make fetchindex. -U rebuilds the index which takes a _long_ time on a slow computer and is not necessary if you've just fetched it. Also I'm not clear if one needs the ports tree and INDEX up to date to upgrade using packages, but the portsdb command should be before the portupgrade command (and after make fetchindex). A good read of man pages and the handbook helped me. pkgdb -F portsclean -CDLP Which version of FreeBSD are you running? Seems that pre-compiled packages are only available for the latest release (5.4 right now). You can get packages which are about as current as the ports by setting PACKAGESITE. Eg in csh setenv PACKAGESITE ftp://ftp.uk.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/packages/Latest/ then pkg_add -r whatever works pretty well for me (it needs the trailing forward slash). I've just discovered this so am pretty happy :) Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade + make_ports.sh: Fixing everything in one go
Fafa Hafiz Krantz wrote: Hello! I thought I'd ask you all if my make_ports.sh is as convenient as I think it is, or if it's totally off track or what not: # cat make_ports.sh cvsup -g -L 2 /etc/cvsupfile cd /usr/ports make fetchindex portupgrade -raP portsdb -uU pkgdb -F portsclean -CDLP As for "portupgrade -raP" I want it to only use packages since my system is very slow, and recompiling all my ports is not an option. This command, however, doesn't seem to work at all. I get a lot of: ** The command returned a non-zero exit status: 1 ** Failed to fetch ... And it ends up compiling my ports instead ... I truly hope anyone can help. Thanks! -- Fafa Hafiz Krantz Research Designer @ http://www.bleed.com fafa, try to use 'portupgrade -raPP' martin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade + make_ports.sh: Fixing everything in one go
Fafa Hafiz Krantz wrote: Hello! I thought I'd ask you all if my make_ports.sh is as convenient as I think it is, or if it's totally off track or what not: # cat make_ports.sh cvsup -g -L 2 /etc/cvsupfile cd /usr/ports make fetchindex portupgrade -raP portsdb -uU pkgdb -F portsclean -CDLP Personally I broke my updating script into two stages. One updates the ports tree and generates a report on what's out of date (via port_version). The second stage runs a script that was generated by the first stage that actually does the portupgrade. This gives me a chance to review the updates and postpone any major ones (openoffice, KDE) until it's convenient. As for "portupgrade -raP" I want it to only use packages since my system is very slow, and recompiling all my ports is not an option. This command, however, doesn't seem to work at all. I get a lot of: ** The command returned a non-zero exit status: 1 ** Failed to fetch ... And it ends up compiling my ports instead ... I truly hope anyone can help. Thanks! Which version of FreeBSD are you running? Seems that pre-compiled packages are only available for the latest release (5.4 right now). Later, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade error
Hi, You may be facing the same problem as I did a few days ago. Please see my previous post at: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-hackers%40freebsd.org/msg52283.html for a quick (and dirty?) solution. Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade error [cannot convert nil into String (PkgDB::DBError)]
On Jul 9, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote: Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? The last change I found mentioned the use of libc and the PORTSDB_DRIVER. I made that change ages ago and have tried the other variants to get around this. -- Paul Beard contact info: www.paulbeard.org/paulbeard.vcf Are you trying to win an argument or solve a problem? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade error [cannot convert nil into String (PkgDB::DBError)]
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 03:48:40PM -0700, paul beard wrote: > I am having some problems with portupgrade. The error message is "/ > usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:322:in `deorigin': " (more > below). I see there have been isolated occurrences of this in June of > 2003 and 2004, curiously, but I haven't found the solutions there to > work. Removing the ports tree and re-fetching it, removing and > rebuilding pkgdb, removing and reinstalling portupgrade/ruby, etc, > even building a new kernel and world, seem ineffective. Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? Kris pgpbuRY3wIe4w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sunday, 26. June 2005 01:18, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > If there was significant "product differentiation" between xfree86 and > xorg, then there would be a reason to keep both. Right now there is > not and with the difficulty in X development, there won't soon be. There's already quite a delta on the video driver level. > Here's the litmus test - would you pull a popular port if it breaks on 4 > but not on 5? 'nuff said. What does that prove? It wouldn't get pulled if it would break the other way around either, but be marked BROKEN for the appropriate branch. > The FreeBSD project agrees with me, if they did not then they would > have rewritten the installer to make it optional which one to pick. If it were possible to run software from binary packages built against Xorg on XFree86 (or vice-versa) hassle-free, that would be an option. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org pgpXZy9vlaQcB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
> You were lucky, the usual results of being vague with questions are not > generally productive. > > It is also polite to thank the poster to the list who actually made the > suggestion that helped you to fix the problem, as well as to let him and > the list know that it did in fact, work. > > It is a sad day when someone as rude as I am find myself lecturing on > politeness! :-) > > Ted Yes i do agree that the intial email lacked enough information on what version of BSD i was using and did send that info through once reminded of that fact. But i honestly didnt see the point in everyone hashing out why i was using XFree86 over Xorg amongst other things, which ended up in a heated long discussion. I personally cant see the big deal about what X server someone uses, that was and is my only point. But i do thank the person who did provide me with the solution of changing imake. Being as i did that then re-did a CVSUP i couldnt say for sure if that was the main reason why it was fixed, but none the less it is fixed now. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:30 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >In all the time of asking for various help and providing >details, the fact of >if the machine has been upgraded has never been relevant and >was still not >relevant in the end. Why are you so defensive? It is likely that if we had known that this wasn't a fresh install, the initial line of questioning would have been based on the assumption that there were leftovers in the system that wern't expected to be there. As it turned out there was - the imake left over from the 5.x probably, although since you haven't posted a confirmation that Dejan's suggestion actually worked (until now) there was not enough info to speculate as to why your system got broken to start with. Didn't it occur to you when you read Daniel's question to you that you hadn't supplied the list with enough information to help you? Why would he have asked what version of FreeBSD were you running in the first place? I am merely pointing out that vague questions are generally what sparks discussion, and therefore those who dislike discussion would be well advised to avoid posting vague questions. >The fact was the discussion was about why i was >bothering with XFree86 on a 5.x when xorg is def which had completly no >bearing on the inital problem. Well, you say you had the imake used with xorg installed, and you seem to be saying that correcting this fixed the problem. While you may not have ever before had an imake installed on this system, it seems quite likely that your imake came in when you did your upgrade to 5.x > But i ended up getting the help i needed. You were lucky, the usual results of being vague with questions are not generally productive. It is also polite to thank the poster to the list who actually made the suggestion that helped you to fix the problem, as well as to let him and the list know that it did in fact, work. It is a sad day when someone as rude as I am find myself lecturing on politeness! :-) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
> >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 9:33 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded > >> from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't > >> like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more > >> complete questions, no? > >> > >> Ted > > > >If thats what you want to believe, who am i to argue :) > > It was just a question, not a statement. No I guess, then. Figures. > > Ted In all the time of asking for various help and providing details, the fact of if the machine has been upgraded has never been relevant and was still not relevant in the end. The fact was the discussion was about why i was bothering with XFree86 on a 5.x when xorg is def which had completly no bearing on the inital problem. But i ended up getting the help i needed. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:35 PM >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Cc: Dejan Lesjak; Ted Mittelstaedt; Mark Linimon >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 9:33 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded >> from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't >> like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more >> complete questions, no? >> >> Ted > >If thats what you want to believe, who am i to argue :) It was just a question, not a statement. No I guess, then. Figures. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 9:33 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded > from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't > like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more > complete questions, no? > > Ted If thats what you want to believe, who am i to argue :) -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
If you had mentioned in the beginning that this system was upgraded from 4 you would have never spawned this discussion. Since you don't like the discussion perhaps that is a lesson to you to make more complete questions, no? Ted >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:26 PM >To: Dejan Lesjak >Cc: Mark Linimon; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Ted Mittelstaedt >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >I use XFree86 as it was what i was using when i upgraded the >machine from 4.x >to use 5.x and i personally prefer it, nothing more nothing >less and untill >such time as Xfree86 is no longer maintained willi entertain >the idea of >moving to Xorg. > >Now may i please be removed from your CC's .. i only wished to >know what was >the problem and possibly how to correct it, nothing more >nothing less. I dont >wish to be apart of this needless discussion. > >-- >Yours Sincerely >Shinjii >http://www.shinji.nq.nu >___ >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sunday 26 of June 2005 01:18, Dejan Lesjak wrote: > On Sunday 26 of June 2005 00:44, Warren wrote: > > > You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The > > > file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: > > > > > > #ifndef DRMIncludesDir > > > #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel > > > #endif > > > > > > If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. > > > > I actually have imake-6.8.1 > > This is imake from Xorg distribution. You need to replace it with the one > from XFree86. The following command should do the trick: > > portupgrade -o devel/imake-4 imake-6\* That should be portupgrade -fo devel/imake-4 imake-6\* of course. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>-Original Message- >From: Dejan Lesjak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:19 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mark Linimon; Warren >Subject: RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Linimon >>>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:25 AM >>>To: Ted Mittelstaedt >>>Cc: Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Warren; >>>freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >>>Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed >>> >>> >>>On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:14:26AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>>> Why are you building xfree86? FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg. It's >>>> just about the same code just different licensing. I don't >think the >>>> FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on >>>FreeBSD 5.X >>>> just FreeBSD 4.11 > >XFree86 should build and work fine on FreeBSD 5.4. If it >doesn't I would like >to know and will try to fix the problem. > >>>I'm sorry, but this is wrong on almost all counts. The default X >>>server that is installed by the base for 5.4 is indeed xorg, but >>>both XFree and xorg are being actively maintained. >> >> >> I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead >> of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites. And >> the reality is this: >> >> ln >> -s >> >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> pport/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c >> xf86drmRandom.c >> rm -f xf86drmSL.c >> ln >> -s >> >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> pport/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c >> xf86drmSL.c >> make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop >> *** Error code 2 >> >> Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. >> *** Error code 1 >> >> Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. >> >> If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then >> answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. What >> do you think maintainence is? > >I have already answered to that on questions@ and to OP. If you >encountered >the same error, this would be caused by either out of date >imake or imake >from Xorg distribution. You can solve the problem by installing >up to date >devel/imake-4 port. > >>>A great deal of >>>work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source >>>branches. >>> >> >> The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. > >There are commits still being made on RELENG_4 branch and >people are still >using it. Ports tree is so far still supported on RELENG_4 >branch. Security >team intends to support this branch at least until January 31, 2007. > Yes, that is why I said "isn't really active" Active means a release is planned and the branch has a future. That branch is in maintainence mode at this time. >>>As for the licensing meta-fiasco, see the FAQ or use Google to find >>>out more; this has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed here, >>>and in other venues, many times. >>> >> >> If the licensng was a non-issue then xorg wouldn't exist. > >The reason for Xorg existence are not licensing issues. > >> Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement >> of xfree86 for recognition in their new license - this was the >> same bunch of bullcrap that the GPL bigots were using to throw rocks >> at the BSD license years ago. > >The move to Xorg as default X11 implementation in ports was not made on >licensing base. > Well then I feel better that the Project made the right choice in going with xorg. I still deplore the splitting of X development between the 2 groups, however. >> We just had a big thread on making FreeBSD easier to use for the >> average person - and now your claiming that it's a -good- thing >> to have two completely different X Windows distributions?!?! How >> exactly does this HELP with the complexity issue - unless the goal is >> to make FreeBSD even more complicated? > >We also support two kerberos implementations, three different >ghostcripts a >number of desktop environments, just as example. Those are simpler, have less effect on everything else if they go away. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
I use XFree86 as it was what i was using when i upgraded the machine from 4.x to use 5.x and i personally prefer it, nothing more nothing less and untill such time as Xfree86 is no longer maintained willi entertain the idea of moving to Xorg. Now may i please be removed from your CC's .. i only wished to know what was the problem and possibly how to correct it, nothing more nothing less. I dont wish to be apart of this needless discussion. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Linimon >>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:25 AM >>To: Ted Mittelstaedt >>Cc: Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Warren; >>freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >>Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed >> >> >>On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:14:26AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> Why are you building xfree86? FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg. It's >>> just about the same code just different licensing. I don't think the >>> FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on >>FreeBSD 5.X >>> just FreeBSD 4.11 XFree86 should build and work fine on FreeBSD 5.4. If it doesn't I would like to know and will try to fix the problem. >>I'm sorry, but this is wrong on almost all counts. The default X >>server that is installed by the base for 5.4 is indeed xorg, but >>both XFree and xorg are being actively maintained. > > > I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead > of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites. And > the reality is this: > > ln > -s > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su > pport/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c > xf86drmRandom.c > rm -f xf86drmSL.c > ln > -s > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su > pport/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c > xf86drmSL.c > make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop > *** Error code 2 > > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. > > If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then > answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. What > do you think maintainence is? I have already answered to that on questions@ and to OP. If you encountered the same error, this would be caused by either out of date imake or imake from Xorg distribution. You can solve the problem by installing up to date devel/imake-4 port. >>A great deal of >>work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source >>branches. >> > > The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. There are commits still being made on RELENG_4 branch and people are still using it. Ports tree is so far still supported on RELENG_4 branch. Security team intends to support this branch at least until January 31, 2007. >>As for the licensing meta-fiasco, see the FAQ or use Google to find >>out more; this has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed here, >>and in other venues, many times. >> > > If the licensng was a non-issue then xorg wouldn't exist. The reason for Xorg existence are not licensing issues. > Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement > of xfree86 for recognition in their new license - this was the > same bunch of bullcrap that the GPL bigots were using to throw rocks > at the BSD license years ago. The move to Xorg as default X11 implementation in ports was not made on licensing base. > We just had a big thread on making FreeBSD easier to use for the > average person - and now your claiming that it's a -good- thing > to have two completely different X Windows distributions?!?! How > exactly does this HELP with the complexity issue - unless the goal is > to make FreeBSD even more complicated? We also support two kerberos implementations, three different ghostcripts a number of desktop environments, just as example. I really don't see how this could be bad or how it complicates things. I could see where asking end user which X11 or which ghostscript he wants to use would be making things complicated, but there is one default to get out of the box. The alternatives are there for people who want to use those. Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>-Original Message- >From: Mark Linimon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:51 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Mark Linimon; Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Warren; >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead >> of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites. > >In general I would rather do that than argue, yes. > >> make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop >> *** Error code 2 >> >> If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then >> answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. > >Actively maintained means having updates tested on the build cluster >and committed when the majority of ports upgrade successfully. It does >not mean every port necessarily is going to work in every single >configuration, since there are a large number of interdependent parts. > >Have you filed a PR about this? query-pr shows no match for 'drm'. > It's not a problem I have since I use xorg on 5.X As a matter of fact I just installed xfree86 a week ago, from scratch, on a new 4.11 system, from a ports tree that I cvsupped, with no problems. So I don't have an answer for the OP as to why his xfree86 setup doesen't build. But I have no problems in building xorg on FreeBSD 5, the OP indicated he was using FreeBSD 5, and FreeBSD 5 comes with a prebuilt binary of xorg. So a very logical question is to ask the OP why he is going at cross-currents and using xfree86 on 5. If his answer had been something that indicated that xfree86 was not a dependency for what he was doing, then once again, the quickest fix would be to simply tell him to stop using xfree86 and build xorg. I don't have any particular bias against xfree86. I do not agree with fracturing the X development effort between 2 virtually identical projects - but as I didn't have any vote in that happening, I am forced to deal with the aftermath. And so I'm going to do that from a self-interest point of view. And the best solution for me and for just about everyone in Open Source is to choose between xfree86 or xorg, and for just about everyone to choose the same choice, and let the other project die off from neglect. The FreeBSD Project chose xorg, so I will chose xorg. Maybe they chose wrong and xorg will die and xfree86 will continue - if that happens I'll deal with it then. If there was significant "product differentiation" between xfree86 and xorg, then there would be a reason to keep both. Right now there is not and with the difficulty in X development, there won't soon be. >fwiw, the most recent update to x11/XFree86-4/Makefile was on >2005/06/15 02:39:58 to update to 4.5.0 and shows that 8 different >PRs were closed by the commit. > >> The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. > >This is news to me. AFAIK we are still requesting all our port >maintainers to keep things working on 4.X whenever possible. > OK, then schedule another RELEASE. If you knew anything about the history of FreeBSD you would know that 4.X should have ended years ago. I know Rod Grimes personally and he was one of the founders, and he said that what happened with 4 was never the way it was intended. Here's the litmus test - would you pull a popular port if it breaks on 4 but not on 5? 'nuff said. > >> the users of open source, which is you and I, are not served by >> splitting development between 2 forks of X Windows. > >You are entitled to your opinion. Others disagree, and quite strongly >so. The FreeBSD project agrees with me, if they did not then they would have rewritten the installer to make it optional which one to pick. > >Finally, the initial question would have probably gotten a better >answer if posted to the freebsd-x11 mailing list, where the maintainers >of the X servers tend to hang out, and any further discussion of these >issues ought to migrate there as well. > I agree with that. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sunday 26 of June 2005 00:44, Warren wrote: > > You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The > > file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: > > > > #ifndef DRMIncludesDir > > #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel > > #endif > > > > If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. > > I actually have imake-6.8.1 This is imake from Xorg distribution. You need to replace it with the one from XFree86. The following command should do the trick: portupgrade -o devel/imake-4 imake-6\* Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead > of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites. In general I would rather do that than argue, yes. > make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop > *** Error code 2 > > If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then > answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. Actively maintained means having updates tested on the build cluster and committed when the majority of ports upgrade successfully. It does not mean every port necessarily is going to work in every single configuration, since there are a large number of interdependent parts. Have you filed a PR about this? query-pr shows no match for 'drm'. fwiw, the most recent update to x11/XFree86-4/Makefile was on 2005/06/15 02:39:58 to update to 4.5.0 and shows that 8 different PRs were closed by the commit. > The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. This is news to me. AFAIK we are still requesting all our port maintainers to keep things working on 4.X whenever possible. > Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement > of xfree86 for recognition in their new license Sigh. I'm really not going to go over this for the Nth time on the mailing lists. The licensing issue was the final straw in a long-running situation that had more to do with who was able to commit what to the XFree repository. Please go do the research on the web, this has a years-long history behind it. > the users of open source, which is you and I, are not served by > splitting development between 2 forks of X Windows. You are entitled to your opinion. Others disagree, and quite strongly so. There are multiple versions of many other things in the ports tree, as well. > We just had a big thread on making FreeBSD easier to use for the > average person - and now your claiming that it's a -good- thing > to have two completely different X Windows distributions?!?! As long as we have people who are demanding that both servers work: yes. If people want something that's the easiest to use, then they should go with the current default. We already have a group of users who have no wish to change to xorg (for their own reasons), and as long as that is the case and there are maintainer cycles to do it, then we'll do both. Finally, the initial question would have probably gotten a better answer if posted to the freebsd-x11 mailing list, where the maintainers of the X servers tend to hang out, and any further discussion of these issues ought to migrate there as well. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
> You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The > file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: > > #ifndef DRMIncludesDir > #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel > #endif > > If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. I actually have imake-6.8.1 -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 7:45 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > But the plain fact of the matter is that the Open Source community > isn't going to tolerate what xfree86 tried doing, and the users of > open source, which is you and I, are not served by splitting development > between 2 forks of X Windows. The amount of new video hardware that is > coming out and needs drivers is increasing, drivers are getting more and > more complex to write, and manufacturers are just as bad as they always > have been about assisting in video driver development. The sooner that > xfree86 goes away and dies the better for the community in the long > run. I dont want to get in the middle of a pissing contest yous seem to have going as to who is right or wrong or which X should be kept. The fact is i simply wished to know why the pkg was failing and how to correct it, nothing more nothing less. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Linimon >Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:25 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Daniel O'Connor; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Warren; >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:14:26AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> Why are you building xfree86? FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg. It's >> just about the same code just different licensing. I don't think the >> FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on >FreeBSD 5.X >> just FreeBSD 4.11 > >I'm sorry, but this is wrong on almost all counts. The default X >server that is installed by the base for 5.4 is indeed xorg, but >both XFree and xorg are being actively maintained. I'm sorry to step on the toes of the port maintainer but instead of complaining about it you need to respond to the realitites. And the reality is this: ln -s /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su pport/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c rm -f xf86drmSL.c ln -s /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su pport/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c xf86drmSL.c make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop *** Error code 2 Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. If you really believe that XFree86 is being actively maintained, then answer the original poster, quit bitching about what I'm saying. What do you think maintainence is? >A great deal of >work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source >branches. > The 4.X source branch isn't really active anymore. >As for the licensing meta-fiasco, see the FAQ or use Google to find >out more; this has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed here, >and in other venues, many times. > If the licensng was a non-issue then xorg wouldn't exist. Personally I deplore the move to xorg based on the simple requirement of xfree86 for recognition in their new license - this was the same bunch of bullcrap that the GPL bigots were using to throw rocks at the BSD license years ago. But the plain fact of the matter is that the Open Source community isn't going to tolerate what xfree86 tried doing, and the users of open source, which is you and I, are not served by splitting development between 2 forks of X Windows. The amount of new video hardware that is coming out and needs drivers is increasing, drivers are getting more and more complex to write, and manufacturers are just as bad as they always have been about assisting in video driver development. The sooner that xfree86 goes away and dies the better for the community in the long run. We just had a big thread on making FreeBSD easier to use for the average person - and now your claiming that it's a -good- thing to have two completely different X Windows distributions?!?! How exactly does this HELP with the complexity issue - unless the goal is to make FreeBSD even more complicated? Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:14:26AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Why are you building xfree86? FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg. It's > just about the same code just different licensing. I don't think the > FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on FreeBSD 5.X > just FreeBSD 4.11 I'm sorry, but this is wrong on almost all counts. The default X server that is installed by the base for 5.4 is indeed xorg, but both XFree and xorg are being actively maintained. A great deal of work goes into keeping both X servers working on the active source branches. As for the licensing meta-fiasco, see the FAQ or use Google to find out more; this has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed here, and in other venues, many times. mcl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
Warren, Why are you building xfree86? FreeBSD 5.4 uses Xorg. It's just about the same code just different licensing. I don't think the FreeBSD core is bothering to keep the xfree86 port working on FreeBSD 5.X just FreeBSD 4.11 Ted >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Warren >Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:17 AM >To: Daniel O'Connor >Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed > > >On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 9:11 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:35, Warren wrote: >> > ln >> > -s >> > >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c >> > rm -f xf86drmSL.c >> > ln >> > -s >> > >/usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfre >e86/os-su >> >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c xf86drmSL.c >> > make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop >> > *** Error code 2 >> > >> > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. >> > *** Error code 1 >> > >> > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. >> >> What commanad did you run? > >portupgrade -aDk -m BATCH=yes >> What version of FreeBSD are you running? >5.4-STABLE >> When did you last cvsup your ports tree? >Just before doing PortUpgrade before sending the 1st email >> Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? >cant say as i did. > >-- >Yours Sincerely >Shinjii >http://www.shinji.nq.nu >___ >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Saturday 25 of June 2005 15:10, Warren wrote: > > After this command that seems to skip ports that fail, what version of > > imake-4 and XFree86-4-libraries do you have installed? > > > > > > Dejan > > What ever is the latest version as i did a CVSUP and portupgrade as of 24 > June 2005 and the above port is the only one that failed. You can check with pkg_info(1). You should have imake-4.5.0. The file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/config/X11.tmpl should include the following: #ifndef DRMIncludesDir #define DRMIncludesDir $(XF86OSSRC)/shared/drm/kernel #endif If it does not, you should (re)install devel/imake-4 port. Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
> After this command that seems to skip ports that fail, what version of > imake-4 and XFree86-4-libraries do you have installed? > > > Dejan What ever is the latest version as i did a CVSUP and portupgrade as of 24 June 2005 and the above port is the only one that failed. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
Warren wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 9:11 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:35, Warren wrote: >> > ln >> > -s >> > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su >> >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c >> > rm -f xf86drmSL.c >> > ln >> > -s >> > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su >> >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c xf86drmSL.c >> > make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop >> > *** Error code 2 >> > >> > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. >> > *** Error code 1 >> > >> > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. >> >> What commanad did you run? > > portupgrade -aDk -m BATCH=yes After this command that seems to skip ports that fail, what version of imake-4 and XFree86-4-libraries do you have installed? Dejan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:47, Warren wrote: > Just before doing PortUpgrade before sending the 1st email > > > Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? > > cant say as i did. Well that was silly.. Not that I think there is a specific entry in this case but it is a good habit to get in to.. Do you have the kernel source installed? I think you may need that to build the xfree86-dri port (I don't know why it doesn't check) -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C pgptVDyvSfQQu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 9:11 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:35, Warren wrote: > > ln > > -s > > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su > >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c > > rm -f xf86drmSL.c > > ln > > -s > > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-su > >pp ort/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c xf86drmSL.c > > make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop > > *** Error code 2 > > > > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. > > *** Error code 1 > > > > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. > > What commanad did you run? portupgrade -aDk -m BATCH=yes > What version of FreeBSD are you running? 5.4-STABLE > When did you last cvsup your ports tree? Just before doing PortUpgrade before sending the 1st email > Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? cant say as i did. -- Yours Sincerely Shinjii http://www.shinji.nq.nu ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade in Xfree86 pkg failed
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:35, Warren wrote: > ln > -s > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-supp >ort/linux/drm/xf86drmRandom.c xf86drmRandom.c > rm -f xf86drmSL.c > ln > -s > /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-supp >ort/linux/drm/xf86drmSL.c xf86drmSL.c > make: don't know how to make /drm.h. Stop > *** Error code 2 > > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri/work/xc/lib/GL. > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/xfree86-dri. What commanad did you run? What version of FreeBSD are you running? When did you last cvsup your ports tree? Did you read /usr/ports/UPDATING? -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C pgpTRuqBYM6re.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: portupgrade, automake14 -> automake19
On 2005-06-09 11:27, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In the last episode (Jun 09), Giorgos Keramidas said: >> On 2005-06-09 11:01, Tony Shadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Could someone give me a quick hint on switching from automake14 to >> > automake19 using the ports tree without wreaking total havock on >> > dependencies? :) >> >> If you are asking what portupgrade will do with the installed ports, >> then there's nothing to worry about. Just run portupgrade -a and it >> will take care of building the necessary auto* ports too. >> >> If you are using automake14 in software you write or build yourself >> outside of the Ports tree, don't. For an example of what may go >> wrong, see the misc/81558 problem report: > > I have never had problems using the numbered auto* ports when building > programs from CVS trees. Here's the bootstrap script I use: it also > works great on Debian and RedHat, which ship numbered auto* binaries as > well. > > #!/bin/sh -e > # Run this to update & generate all the automatic things > # > > # Some OSes (RedHat) symlink 'autoconf' to 2.13 even though a perfectly > # good 2.5x is available. If a numbered version is not found, the > # non-numbered executable will be used, and we hope for the best. API versioning was introduced in automake-1.6.x, so this may or may not work as expected. I usually just update to the latest automake version available and install a common set of the autotools (i.e. same versions) with --prefix=/opt/autotools in Linux, BSD and Solaris. This way all three systems (which may be used as development workstations by people here at work), have the same version and autogen.sh doesn't have to guess. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade, automake14 -> automake19
In the last episode (Jun 09), Giorgos Keramidas said: > On 2005-06-09 11:01, Tony Shadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could someone give me a quick hint on switching from automake14 to > > automake19 using the ports tree without wreaking total havock on > > dependencies? :) > > If you are asking what portupgrade will do with the installed ports, > then there's nothing to worry about. Just run portupgrade -a and it > will take care of building the necessary auto* ports too. > > If you are using automake14 in software you write or build yourself > outside of the Ports tree, don't. For an example of what may go > wrong, see the misc/81558 problem report: I have never had problems using the numbered auto* ports when building programs from CVS trees. Here's the bootstrap script I use: it also works great on Debian and RedHat, which ship numbered auto* binaries as well. #!/bin/sh -e # Run this to update & generate all the automatic things # # Some OSes (RedHat) symlink 'autoconf' to 2.13 even though a perfectly # good 2.5x is available. If a numbered version is not found, the # non-numbered executable will be used, and we hope for the best. AC= for i in 259 -2.59 258 -2.58 257 -2.57 256 -2.56 255 -2.55 2.55 254 -2.54 2.54 253 -2.53 2.53 ; do if type autoconf$i >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then AC=$i ; echo detected autoconf$AC ; break fi done AM= for i in 19 -1.9 18 -1.8 17 -1.7 1.6 -1.6 15 -1.5 ; do if type automake$i >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then AM=$i ; echo detected automake$AM ; break fi done # export these because all 5 need to know the exact name of the other ones AUTOCONF=autoconf$AC ; export AUTOCONF AUTOHEADER=autoheader$AC ; export AUTOHEADER AUTOM4TE=autom4te$AC ; export AUTOM4TE ACLOCAL=aclocal$AM ; export ACLOCAL AUTOMAKE=automake$AM ; export AUTOMAKE rm -rf autom4te* $ACLOCAL -I . $AUTOHEADER $AUTOMAKE --add-missing $AUTOCONF -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade, automake14 -> automake19
On 2005-06-09 11:14, Tony Shadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, I was referring to the fact that I ran portupgrade on automake14 > and it complains and says that it is deprecated and strongly > encourages using automake19 instead. I was curious if I just deleted > the automake14 port and installed automake19 if I would be wreaking > havoc on my dependencies in other ports. That's not a good idea either. The autotools are infamous for their tendency to be very incompatible with previous releases of the same software. The best thing to do would be to contact the respective port maintainers and see if they have plans to test with automake19. They may have already investigated the transition to automake19, but stopped for: - lack of time - waiting for a newer version of the distfile any time now - etc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade, automake14 -> automake19
No, I was referring to the fact that I ran portupgrade on automake14 and it complains and says that it is deprecated and strongly encourages using automake19 instead. I was curious if I just deleted the automake14 port and installed automake19 if I would be wreaking havoc on my dependencies in other ports. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2005-06-09 11:01, Tony Shadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could someone give me a quick hint on switching from automake14 to automake19 using the ports tree without wreaking total havock on dependencies? :) If you are asking what portupgrade will do with the installed ports, then there's nothing to worry about. Just run portupgrade -a and it will take care of building the necessary auto* ports too. If you are using automake14 in software you write or build yourself outside of the Ports tree, don't. For an example of what may go wrong, see the misc/81558 problem report: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=81558 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade, automake14 -> automake19
On 2005-06-09 11:01, Tony Shadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could someone give me a quick hint on switching from automake14 to > automake19 using the ports tree without wreaking total havock on > dependencies? :) If you are asking what portupgrade will do with the installed ports, then there's nothing to worry about. Just run portupgrade -a and it will take care of building the necessary auto* ports too. If you are using automake14 in software you write or build yourself outside of the Ports tree, don't. For an example of what may go wrong, see the misc/81558 problem report: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=81558 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade, automake14 -> automake19
In the last episode (Jun 09), Tony Shadwick said: > Could someone give me a quick hint on switching from automake14 to > automake19 using the ports tree without wreaking total havock on > dependencies? :) The numbered auto* ports install into separate directories, so there is nothing to be done. Install the automake19 port and start running "automake19" instead of "automake14". Both ports will live happily side by side. If you are talking about updating a port to use a different version of automake, just edit the WANT_AUTOMAKE_VER line in the Makefile. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade -NRP interrupted, now what?
I'd try something along the lines of pkg_delete -f kdepim-3.4.0 and its ilk, then continue the portupgrade. Anyone else? On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Gareth Bailey wrote: Hi there, A power cut interrupted my "portupgrade -NRP kde" task. I ran "pkgdb -Fu" as i thought that it would fix any inconsistencies i might have. I then ran "portupgrade -NRP kde" in an attempt to continue my package install of kde. The install is failing with the following sample error messages: pkg_add: can't open dependency file '/var/db/pkg/kdepim-3.4.0/+REQUIRED_BY'! dependency registration is incomplete pkg_add: can't open dependency file '/var/db/pkg/kdesdk-3.4.0/+REQUIRED_BY'! dependency registration is incomplete pkg_add: can't open dependency file '/var/db/pkg/kdeutils-3.4.0 /+REQUIRED_BY'! dependency registration is incomplete pkg_add: can't open dependency file '/var/db/pkg/kdeartwork-3.4.0 /+REQUIRED_BY'! dependency registration is incomplete Please advise on what i should do to complete the kde install. Thanks, Kind regards, Gareth ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade & make options
Anthony M. Agelastos wrote:
After issuing many make options to mplayer when installing, I noticed
today that it can be updated. If I were to do a portupgrade -arR,
would it remember the various options? I am sure this is a common
question, but I could not find a resolute solution after reading the
handbook and doing some searching online. I found that the primary
answer is that portupgrade cannot deal with this. What I have found
is that one can configure the MAKE_ARGS in pkgtools.conf somehow. I
have also found that there is some other tool (penv) that is used to
help out with this as well. What way is recommended? I know some
ports save this configuration information in /var/db/ports/ (I am
pretty sure that's the directory)... how can one force a port to save
such information? Or, is mimicking those files one other way of doing
what it is I wish? Any and all information on this would be greatly
appreciated. I checked the man page with pkgtools.conf and did not
see anything helpful. Thank you all for your assistance with this.
Keeping the options file under /var/db/ports/{portname} is a function of
each individual port (i.e. some do it, many (expecially older ones)
don't). AFAIK creating the options file for a port which does not
create one, won't help you.
Configuring your defaults in pkgtools.conf is the easiest way to go, but
there is no guarantee that an individual port (e.g. samba?) won't then
ask you anyway using a popup screen. Not sure what you mean by " found
that the primary answer is that portupgrade cannot deal with this"
since this is exactly the software which uses pkgtools.conf. The man
page is rather sparse but the file is self-documenting -- i.e. read it
and do what it says!
In pkgtools.conf look for the MAKE_ARGS section and add you entry. Some
examples from mine:
'print/ghostscript-gnu' => 'A4=yes',
'www/mozilla' => 'WITH_JAVASCRIPT_DEBUGGER=1 WITHOUT_CHATZILLA=1',
'www/apache20' => 'WITHOUT_IPV6=1 WITH_AUTH_MODULES=1
WITH_LDAP_MODULES=1 WITH_MISC_MODULES=1 WITH_PRO
XY_MODULES=1 WITH_THREADS_MODULES=1 WITH_SUEXEC_MODULES=1 WITH_DBM=bdb
WITH_BERKELEYDB=FreeBSD',
Don't forget the comma at the end of each line and to quote your
options. I've no idea how portupgrade et al. cope if there is a newline
in the options string, so I make sure there isn't one.
--Alex
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade, pkgdb hang
You're not doing anything wrong. The pkgdb apparently has some major differences that is taking a large amount of time to reconcile. I had one machine that was way behind and took several hours to catch up. Run pkgdb and go to bed. :) Next day everything should be fine. On Sat, 28 May 2005, Robert S wrote: I am a newcomer to freebsd and am still trying to get to grips with package management. When I try to do a binary upgrade of a package it hangs. Recently I tried to upgrade sylpheed-claws and nothing happened for 2 hours. I got the following message: # portupgrade -v -P sylpheed-claws ---> Session started at: Sat, 28 May 2005 08:53:35 + [Updating the pkgdb in /var/db/pkg ... - 260 packages found (-1 +7) (...) I get similar behaviour when I try to do pkgdb -F I am running through a proxy and have PACKAGESITE="ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-stable/Latest/"; in my /etc/profile I assume that I'm doing something wrong. Can somebody help? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade giving an error
Hello: Thank you for the reply. You guys are great! After reading the references below, the error makes sense. It looks like I should upgrade the Gnome port to a newer version. Again, thanks for replying with a useful solution!. Harold On Thu, 26 May 2005 08:54:18 +0200, Gregory Nou wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Please pardon the intrusion. > > > >After doing a pkgdb -F, I ran a portupgrade -nP --all > >to check my installation. I got a single error: > > > >! multimedia/nautilus-media (nautilus-media-0.8.0_4) > >(port directory error). > > > >I am then prompted as to whether I want to delete this > >package. If I answer [no] (the default), nothing is > >fixed. If I answer [yes], my installation reports that > >this package is a dependency to Gnome, and cannot be > >removed. > > > >The output of my uname -a is: > >FreeBSD BSD.mydomain.local 5.3-RELEASE FreeBSD > >5.3-RELEASE #0: Fri Nov 5 04:19:18 UTC 2004 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 > > > >Would someone suggest what I should do about this? > > > >Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. > > > >Harold. > >___ > >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > > > > Hi, > > in fact, nautilus-media has disappeared from the ports > tree... > Have a loo at MOVED : > multimedia/nautilus-media||2005-03-12|Deprecated, and > no longer builds > By the way, you may also be inerested by the entry > 20050312 of UPDATING, > which says : > " Gnome has been upgraded to 2.10 and gtk/glib to 2.6. > DO NOT USE portupgrade(1) to update any gnome or gtk > or any port that depends on them. Using portupgrade > will cause problems and you will have to manually > upgrade ports. " > > Cheers > > -- > Gregory ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade giving an error
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please pardon the intrusion. After doing a pkgdb -F, I ran a portupgrade -nP --all to check my installation. I got a single error: ! multimedia/nautilus-media (nautilus-media-0.8.0_4) (port directory error). I am then prompted as to whether I want to delete this package. If I answer [no] (the default), nothing is fixed. If I answer [yes], my installation reports that this package is a dependency to Gnome, and cannot be removed. The output of my uname -a is: FreeBSD BSD.mydomain.local 5.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE #0: Fri Nov 5 04:19:18 UTC 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 Would someone suggest what I should do about this? Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Harold. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Hi, in fact, nautilus-media has disappeared from the ports tree... Have a loo at MOVED : multimedia/nautilus-media||2005-03-12|Deprecated, and no longer builds By the way, you may also be inerested by the entry 20050312 of UPDATING, which says : " Gnome has been upgraded to 2.10 and gtk/glib to 2.6. DO NOT USE portupgrade(1) to update any gnome or gtk or any port that depends on them. Using portupgrade will cause problems and you will have to manually upgrade ports. " Cheers -- Gregory ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl
That seemed to work. I removed the openssl extension from the php extensions.ini file and all seems to work fine now. Thanks, Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Kellers Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:01 To: postmaster Cc: 'Kris Kennaway'; Eric Sheesley Subject: Re: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl On Saturday 21 May 2005 10:39 am, Eric Sheesley wrote: > When I did the portupgrade I did 'portupgrade -arR'. Apache fails to > start at boot. If I run it manually with 'httpd' it works fine but if > I do 'httpd -DSSL' it fails. I've even rebuilt the apache13-modssl > port with no luck. Not sure what other details I can give besides the > messages log reports a core dump. > > -Original Message- > From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 02:38 > To: Eric Sheesley > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl > > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 12:47:41AM -0400, Eric Sheesley wrote: > > I am running Freebsd 5.3 and just did a portupgrade(upgraded php, > > amavis, clamav, and cyrus-sasl. When I rebooted apache refused to > > start. I can get apache started with no ssl but not with it. I > > have apache13-modssl installed. It wasn't modified during the > > upgrade though. So it would seem taht teh ssl mod is crashing. Any ideas? > > Anyone else experience this? > > You need to > > * make sure you also update the ports that depend on those you > updated, e.g. by using portupgrade -a, -r, etc. > > * provide more details in your support requests. "It is crashing", > etc is not helpful. Show exact commands you are running and exact > output, and exact errors, if any. > > Thanks, > Kris > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" I have had upgrades to php mysteriously (that is with no apparent logfile error) break apache. Try commenting out the following lines from your httpd.conf file: LoadModule php4_module AddModule mod_php4.c and restart apache. If that works, look in /usr/local/etc/php/extensions.ini and see if there are any obvious php conflicting modules and comment them out --extension=recode.so has sometimes gotten placed back in that file even though it's a known conflict after an upgrade. Then restart apache. If there is no "obvious" conflict like the recode conflict, you may have to begin commenting out the extensions in that file one by one, restarting apache until it starts again. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl
On Saturday 21 May 2005 10:39 am, Eric Sheesley wrote: > When I did the portupgrade I did 'portupgrade -arR'. Apache fails to start > at boot. If I run it manually with 'httpd' it works fine but if I do > 'httpd -DSSL' it fails. I've even rebuilt the apache13-modssl port with no > luck. Not sure what other details I can give besides the messages log > reports a core dump. > > -Original Message- > From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 02:38 > To: Eric Sheesley > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl > > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 12:47:41AM -0400, Eric Sheesley wrote: > > I am running Freebsd 5.3 and just did a portupgrade(upgraded php, > > amavis, clamav, and cyrus-sasl. When I rebooted apache refused to > > start. I can get apache started with no ssl but not with it. I have > > apache13-modssl installed. It wasn't modified during the upgrade > > though. So it would seem taht teh ssl mod is crashing. Any ideas? > > Anyone else experience this? > > You need to > > * make sure you also update the ports that depend on those you updated, > e.g. by using portupgrade -a, -r, etc. > > * provide more details in your support requests. "It is crashing", etc is > not helpful. Show exact commands you are running and exact output, and > exact errors, if any. > > Thanks, > Kris > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" I have had upgrades to php mysteriously (that is with no apparent logfile error) break apache. Try commenting out the following lines from your httpd.conf file: LoadModule php4_module AddModule mod_php4.c and restart apache. If that works, look in /usr/local/etc/php/extensions.ini and see if there are any obvious php conflicting modules and comment them out --extension=recode.so has sometimes gotten placed back in that file even though it's a known conflict after an upgrade. Then restart apache. If there is no "obvious" conflict like the recode conflict, you may have to begin commenting out the extensions in that file one by one, restarting apache until it starts again. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl
Here is the error from the log: May 21 10:49:30 rogue kernel: pid 69446 (httpd), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core dumped) -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 02:38 To: Eric Sheesley Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 12:47:41AM -0400, Eric Sheesley wrote: > I am running Freebsd 5.3 and just did a portupgrade(upgraded php, > amavis, clamav, and cyrus-sasl. When I rebooted apache refused to > start. I can get apache started with no ssl but not with it. I have > apache13-modssl installed. It wasn't modified during the upgrade > though. So it would seem taht teh ssl mod is crashing. Any ideas? Anyone else experience this? You need to * make sure you also update the ports that depend on those you updated, e.g. by using portupgrade -a, -r, etc. * provide more details in your support requests. "It is crashing", etc is not helpful. Show exact commands you are running and exact output, and exact errors, if any. Thanks, Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl
When I did the portupgrade I did 'portupgrade -arR'. Apache fails to start at boot. If I run it manually with 'httpd' it works fine but if I do 'httpd -DSSL' it fails. I've even rebuilt the apache13-modssl port with no luck. Not sure what other details I can give besides the messages log reports a core dump. -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 02:38 To: Eric Sheesley Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 12:47:41AM -0400, Eric Sheesley wrote: > I am running Freebsd 5.3 and just did a portupgrade(upgraded php, > amavis, clamav, and cyrus-sasl. When I rebooted apache refused to > start. I can get apache started with no ssl but not with it. I have > apache13-modssl installed. It wasn't modified during the upgrade > though. So it would seem taht teh ssl mod is crashing. Any ideas? Anyone else experience this? You need to * make sure you also update the ports that depend on those you updated, e.g. by using portupgrade -a, -r, etc. * provide more details in your support requests. "It is crashing", etc is not helpful. Show exact commands you are running and exact output, and exact errors, if any. Thanks, Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade breaks Apache13-modssl
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 12:47:41AM -0400, Eric Sheesley wrote: > I am running Freebsd 5.3 and just did a portupgrade(upgraded php, amavis, > clamav, and cyrus-sasl. When I rebooted apache refused to start. I can get > apache started with no ssl but not with it. I have apache13-modssl > installed. It wasn't modified during the upgrade though. So it would seem > taht teh ssl mod is crashing. Any ideas? Anyone else experience this? You need to * make sure you also update the ports that depend on those you updated, e.g. by using portupgrade -a, -r, etc. * provide more details in your support requests. "It is crashing", etc is not helpful. Show exact commands you are running and exact output, and exact errors, if any. Thanks, Kris pgpYV7IHPgcPq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Portupgrade problem
On 2005-04-08, Aperez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > I am having the following problem when I try to upgrade my ports: > > portupgrade -arR > cd: can't cd to /usr/ports/multimedia/nautilus-media > Port directory not found: multimedia/nautilus-media > !multimedia/nautilus-media (nautilus-media-0.8.0_4) (port directory error) > > I checked in /usr/ports/multimedia and of course there is not such > directory. >From /usr/ports/UPDATING 20050312: AFFECTS: all users who have glib/gtk/gnome libraries installed AUTHOR: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD gnome team Gnome has been upgraded to 2.10 and gtk/glib to 2.6. DO NOT USE portupgrade(1) to update any gnome or gtk or any port that depends on them. Using portupgrade will cause problems and you will have to manually upgrade ports. Please use the gnome_upgrade.sh script from http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/gnome_upgrade.sh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade problem
- Original Message - From: "Aperez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:23 PM Subject: Portupgrade problem > Hi > > I am having the following problem when I try to upgrade my ports: > > portupgrade -arR > cd: can't cd to /usr/ports/multimedia/nautilus-media > Port directory not found: multimedia/nautilus-media > !multimedia/nautilus-media (nautilus-media-0.8.0_4) (port directory error) > > I checked in /usr/ports/multimedia and of course there is not such > directory. > > Is there a way I can fix this? > > Thanks > > Is your ports tree current via cvs? If not, I'd update the tree, then rebuild portupgrade and see how that works for you. -- Micheal Patterson Senior Communications Systems Engineer 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade weirdness
Replying to my own message. For the archives, the problem below was caused because my local cvsup mirror was not in sync with the INDEX file I downloaded from the main FreeBSD site. Sorry, should have checked a specific port version Makefile before posting the question. Nelis On Apr 5, 2005 1:17 PM, Nelis Lamprecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I seem to be having some difficulty upgrading some of my packages > using portupgrade. Here is an example: > > medusa# portversion -vl "<" | grep m4 > m4-1.4.1< needs updating (port has 1.4.3) > > medusa# portupgrade m4 > medusa# > > Basically it's doing nothing as if it thinks the port is already > updated ? This happens with my php4 port as well as the quagga port > and one or two others. Some update fine, some don't. If I do a > portupgrade -f it installs the same version currently installed and > still doesn't install the new port. > > Any ideas ? > > Thanks. > > Nelis > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade failing on firefox and thunderbird
Richard Danter wrote: Hi all, I am trying to update my installations of firefox and thunderbird. I have done this several times in the past with no problems but lately I get the following errors (see below). Anyone else seeing this? I can update other ports just fine... Thanks Rich Well, the output you sent tells us that you have a "checksum mismatch" for the firefox tarball. Basically, the firefox tarball is corrupt - the system can't verify that it's the right file. Most likely, a tarball was partially downloaded, and for some reason was truncated before fetch got finished with it (e.g. connection dropped, you control-C'ed out to do something else, whatever), or it's possible that the file was simply corrupted in transfer. This is a pretty easy fix --- all you should have to do is delete the bad tarball from /usr/ports/distfiles and start the process again. HTH, Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade failing on firefox and thunderbird
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2005-04-04, Richard Danter scribbled these curious markings: > Hi all, > > I am trying to update my installations of firefox and thunderbird. I > have done this several times in the past with no problems but lately I > get the following errors (see below). Anyone else seeing this? I can > update other ports just fine... Remove the firefox tarball from /usr/ports/distfiles and try again. Best Regards, Christopher Nehren -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCUWRSk/lo7zvzJioRAlwxAKCeeQZ59kj/bLWL1NMz5v5nRqrKxQCdEW9h U+5cMkz0/eWKrxbaBj4VMS4= =UdPL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson If you ask the wrong questions, you get answers like "42" and "God". Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade failing on firefox and thunderbird
On Apr 4, 2005 4:31 PM, Richard Danter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am trying to update my installations of firefox and thunderbird. I > have done this several times in the past with no problems but lately I > get the following errors (see below). Anyone else seeing this? I can > update other ports just fine... I had this problem last night with upgrading python, I found running: cvsup /usr/ports/supfile again and then running portupgrade python fixed things. No idea why, best idea I can think of is that one of the files got corrupted during transfer or there was network timeout on my end. Obviously substitute /usr/ports/supfile for the location of your supfile. :) Paul -- Rogue Tory www.roguetory.org.uk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade questions
Thanks all for the help, it is working perfectly now! Rich RW wrote: On Wednesday 30 March 2005 10:55, Darksidex wrote: Richard Danter wrote: 1. If I do "portupgrade -rR port" it will recompile the new version of "port" and related ports as expected but it will also try to compile up any packages that are dependent. Is there a way to tell it not to upgrade packages, or to upgrade them using a new package? portupgrade -rRPP port => this will force portupgrade to use only ports Also look at the HOLD_PKGS array in pkgtools.conf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade questions
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 10:55, Darksidex wrote: > Richard Danter wrote: > > 1. If I do "portupgrade -rR port" it will recompile the new version of > > "port" and related ports as expected but it will also try to compile up > > any packages that are dependent. Is there a way to tell it not to > > upgrade packages, or to upgrade them using a new package? > > portupgrade -rRPP port => this will force portupgrade to use only ports Also look at the HOLD_PKGS array in pkgtools.conf ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: portupgrade questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard Danter wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a mixture of ports and packages on my system. Mostly ports, but > since my machine is not all that fast I decided not to compile things > like OpenOffice.org for obvious reasons. > > I have two questions about portupgrade: man portupgrade > > 1. If I do "portupgrade -rR port" it will recompile the new version of > "port" and related ports as expected but it will also try to compile up > any packages that are dependent. Is there a way to tell it not to > upgrade packages, or to upgrade them using a new package? portupgrade -rRPP port => this will force portupgrade to use only ports > > 2. If, when initially compiling a port, I specified options to make (eg > "make USE_MOZILLA=firefox install clean") how do I ensure that > portupgrade will use the same options? /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf => Check MAKE_ARGS section -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCSnePLWSOuibjjvIRAqekAJ4ga7032y1swfvkuLBn+xTql1kxYACfbE6/ deCEpn0INxgLi9yBYKAEU/M= =oJe3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Jay O'Brien wrote: Francisco Reyes wrote: /usr/ports/sysutils/pkg_tree Interesting. Thanks! I wonder how that compares to portmanager. I have never used port manager, but pkg_tree only lets you see a tree of the ports. It doesn't help you manage them. I don't know if port manager has an equivalent. -- http://stringsutils.com Utility for developers. Compute length, MD5, CRC and more. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
Alex de Kruijff wrote: > > You told your system to install portmanager and the ports that > it needs, but also all the ports that are based on it. Please > check 'man portupgrade' about the options. > Good point, That is a man page I hadn't thought to review. Thank you! Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
Francisco Reyes wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jay O'Brien wrote: > > >>Thanks for the heads up on 'make search', even if I can't find a complete >>description of the command. I find that it is referenced in the manual, >>however. > > > Also check out the port > /usr/ports/sysutils/pkg_tree > > It's very usefull to see dependencies. > > -- > http://stringsutils.com > Utility for developers. Compute length, MD5, CRC and more. Interesting. Thanks! I wonder how that compares to portmanager. Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 06:20:00PM -0800, Jay O'Brien wrote: > Updating a computer, pkg_info reported I only had two packages, > cvsup-without-gui-16.1h and perl-5.8.5, both of which were out > of date as reported by pkg_version. > > I tried to install portmanager, but it was not able to get the > needed files from http://portmanager.sunsite.dk. > > So, I installed portupgrade. Those files came in fine. > > I then did "portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR", which was successful for me > several months ago on another computer. > > The computer ran for over nearly two hours, with messages scrolling > by so fast it was nearly impossible to read, filling up the screen with > text. I used script so as to capture the screen messages; the capture > file of the screen is 1.2MB in size! This is normal. > Now, pkg_info says I have 10 packages installed; added were ezm3, > gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool, portupgrade,ruby and ruby18. If > these all required to make portupgrade or perl work, where is that > reference? These are in the port system /usr/ports/ > Help! What did I do? You told you system to install portmanager and the ports that it needs, but also all the ports that are based on it. Please check 'man portupgrade' about the options. -- Alex Please copy the original recipients, otherwise I may not read your reply. WWW: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Jay O'Brien wrote: Alec Berryman wrote: Thanks for the heads up on 'make search', even if I can't find a complete description of the command. I find that it is referenced in the manual, however. Also check out the port /usr/ports/sysutils/pkg_tree It's very usefull to see dependencies. -- http://stringsutils.com Utility for developers. Compute length, MD5, CRC and more. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
Randy, Mike: Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't considered a dependency that goes away after the dependent port is built. Now it makes perfect sense. Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
RW wrote: > make seach is documented in man ports It sure is! THANK YOU! Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Monday 28 March 2005 05:50 am, Randy Pratt wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:49:11 -0800 > > Jay O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael C. Shultz wrote: > > > It would be nice if the ports make options were better > > > documented, but > > > > > > you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find > > > information on the various options. > > > > > > here is an example: > > > > > > # all-depends-list > > > # - Show all directories which are > > > dependencies # for this port. > > > > > > then > > > > > > cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/ > > > make all-depends-list > > > > > > result: > > > > > > /usr/ports/converters/libiconv > > > /usr/ports/devel/gettext > > > /usr/ports/devel/gmake > > > /usr/ports/devel/libtool15 > > > > > > -Mike > > > > Mike, > > > > That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into > > perspective. > > > > I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion. > > It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which > > it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been > > identified as a "leaf port"? > > Good observation on your part and its a good question to ask. > > I'm not real familar with portmanager but it appears to identify the > leaf ports in the same manner as sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and > sysutils/pkg_rmleaves do. The utilities are only considering the > run-dependencies as needed. The main difference between sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and portmanager -slid is portmanager catches all of the leafs in one pass, even after you've deleted a few. With pkg_cutleaves when you remove a leaf you have to look through all of them again to see if any new ones were exposed. > > Any port that is only required as a build-dependency is treated as > a leaf port. They could be removed but it would have to be rebuilt > if it were needed again. Correct. > > I usually keep these tools that are only needed for building since I > run portupgrade nightly. Others that have limited hard disk space > might elect to remove them and their associated source tarballs. Its > left to the individual to decide whether or not to keep them. The idea behind identifying leaves is to see ports you may have installed and forgotten about because you never use them. Unless space is a problem I would recommend not removing ports that are build tools like ezm. -Mike > > You're on the right track to understanding how the ports system works > and using its tools. Just keep reading the man pages and observing > how things function. > > Best regards, > > Randy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sunday 27 March 2005 11:49 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: > Michael C. Shultz wrote: > > It would be nice if the ports make options were better documented, > > but > > > > you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find information > > on the various options. > > > > here is an example: > > > > # all-depends-list > > # - Show all directories which are > > dependencies # for this port. > > > > then > > > > cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/ > > make all-depends-list > > > > result: > > > > /usr/ports/converters/libiconv > > /usr/ports/devel/gettext > > /usr/ports/devel/gmake > > /usr/ports/devel/libtool15 > > > > -Mike > > Mike, > > That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into > perspective. > > I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion. > It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which > it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been > identified as a "leaf port"? > > Jay ezm3 is a build dependency most likely, meaning once cvsup-without-gui is built it no longer needs ezm3, runs fine without it. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:49:11 -0800 Jay O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael C. Shultz wrote: > > > It would be nice if the ports make options were better documented, but > > you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find information > > on the various options. > > > > here is an example: > > > > # all-depends-list > > # - Show all directories which are dependencies > > # for this port. > > > > then > > > > cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/ > > make all-depends-list > > > > result: > > > > /usr/ports/converters/libiconv > > /usr/ports/devel/gettext > > /usr/ports/devel/gmake > > /usr/ports/devel/libtool15 > > > > -Mike > > > > Mike, > > That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into perspective. > > I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion. > It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which > it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been > identified as a "leaf port"? Good observation on your part and its a good question to ask. I'm not real familar with portmanager but it appears to identify the leaf ports in the same manner as sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and sysutils/pkg_rmleaves do. The utilities are only considering the run-dependencies as needed. Any port that is only required as a build-dependency is treated as a leaf port. They could be removed but it would have to be rebuilt if it were needed again. I usually keep these tools that are only needed for building since I run portupgrade nightly. Others that have limited hard disk space might elect to remove them and their associated source tarballs. Its left to the individual to decide whether or not to keep them. You're on the right track to understanding how the ports system works and using its tools. Just keep reading the man pages and observing how things function. Best regards, Randy -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Monday 28 March 2005 06:41, Jay O'Brien wrote: > stheg olloydson wrote: > > Hello, > > > > They are recursive dependencies. Check each ports requirements. > > cvsup-without-gui depends on ezm3. ezm3 depends on gmake, > > gettext and libiconv. libiconv depends on libtool...and the foot > > bone's connected to the toe bone :). > > > > hth, > > > > stheg > > stheg, > > Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That is > very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't have a > SEARCH statement) and is it documented somewhere, like in a MAN page? > > The handbook, ¶4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it > works. make seach is documented in man ports ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
Michael C. Shultz wrote: > It would be nice if the ports make options were better documented, but > you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find information > on the various options. > > here is an example: > > # all-depends-list > # - Show all directories which are dependencies > # for this port. > > then > > cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/ > make all-depends-list > > result: > > /usr/ports/converters/libiconv > /usr/ports/devel/gettext > /usr/ports/devel/gmake > /usr/ports/devel/libtool15 > > -Mike > Mike, That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into perspective. I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion. It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been identified as a "leaf port"? Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
it was said: >But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't have a >SEARCH statement) and is it documented somewhere, like in a MAN >page? > >The handbook, ¶4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain >how it works. > Hello, It uses /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk. I doubt the options in there are officially documented, unless they are in the Developer's Handbook. There used to be a really good replacement for make search that had a lot of nifty options. Because I rarely used it (or make search), what it was called is lost to the mists of foggy memory Regards, stheg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:51:28 -0800, Michael C. Shultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 27 March 2005 09:41 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: > > stheg olloydson wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > They are recursive dependencies. Check each ports requirements. > > > cvsup-without-gui depends on ezm3. ezm3 depends on gmake, > > > gettext and libiconv. libiconv depends on libtool...and the foot > > > bone's connected to the toe bone :). > > > > > > hth, > > > > > > stheg > > > > stheg, > > > > Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That > > is very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't > > have a SEARCH statement) and is it documented somewhere, like in a > > MAN page? > > > > The handbook, ¶4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it > > works. > > > > Jay > > It would be nice if the ports make options were better documented, but > you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find information > on the various options. > > here is an example: > > # all-depends-list > # - Show all directories which are dependencies > # for this port. > > then > > cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/ > make all-depends-list > > result: > > /usr/ports/converters/libiconv > /usr/ports/devel/gettext > /usr/ports/devel/gmake > /usr/ports/devel/libtool15 > > -Mike > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > Thank you Michael for the very usefull information. Ahh, can't say how much I've learned after joining the lists. -- Kind regards Abu Khaled ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sunday 27 March 2005 09:41 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: > stheg olloydson wrote: > > Hello, > > > > They are recursive dependencies. Check each ports requirements. > > cvsup-without-gui depends on ezm3. ezm3 depends on gmake, > > gettext and libiconv. libiconv depends on libtool...and the foot > > bone's connected to the toe bone :). > > > > hth, > > > > stheg > > stheg, > > Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That > is very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't > have a SEARCH statement) and is it documented somewhere, like in a > MAN page? > > The handbook, ¶4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it > works. > > Jay It would be nice if the ports make options were better documented, but you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find information on the various options. here is an example: # all-depends-list # - Show all directories which are dependencies # for this port. then cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/ make all-depends-list result: /usr/ports/converters/libiconv /usr/ports/devel/gettext /usr/ports/devel/gmake /usr/ports/devel/libtool15 -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
stheg olloydson wrote: > Hello, > > They are recursive dependencies. Check each ports requirements. > cvsup-without-gui depends on ezm3. ezm3 depends on gmake, > gettext and libiconv. libiconv depends on libtool...and the foot > bone's connected to the toe bone :). > > hth, > > stheg > stheg, Thank you. Great learning experience. Especially 'make search'. That is very useful. But how does it work (/usr/ports/Makefile doesn't have a SEARCH statement) and is it documented somewhere, like in a MAN page? The handbook, ¶4.3, mentions 'make search' but doesn't explain how it works. Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
it was said: >>If you updated your soirces/ports "cvsup" then portupgrade did >>what you asked it to do. It Updated all outdated packages/ports >>and there dependencies. > >I'm convinced that you are right. However, why don't I show the >other dependencies? Hello, They are recursive dependencies. Check each ports requirements. cvsup-without-gui depends on ezm3. ezm3 depends on gmake, gettext and libiconv. libiconv depends on libtool...and the foot bone's connected to the toe bone :). hth, stheg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:27:17 -0800, Jay O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Abu Khaled wrote: > > > ezm3, gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool are the build dependencies for > > cvsup-without-gui. > > > > # cd /usr/ports > > # make search name="cvsup-without-gui" > > > > Abu, I don't get that result. I only show ezm3-1.2. > > # cd /usr/ports > # make search name="cvsup-without-gui" > Port: cvsup-without-gui-16.1h_2 > Path: /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui > Info: General network file distribution system optimized for CVS (non-GUI > version) > Maint: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > B-deps: ezm3-1.2 > R-deps: > WWW:http://www.cvsup.org/ > # > > > If you updated your soirces/ports "cvsup" then portupgrade did what > > you asked it to do. It Updated all outdated packages/ports and there > > dependencies. > > I'm convinced that you are right. However, why don't I show the other > dependencies? # cd /usr/ports # make search name=ezm3 That's the best thing about portupgrade/portmanager. We don't have to worry (too much) about dependencies. > > Jay > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > -- Kind regards Abu Khaled ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
Abu Khaled wrote: > ezm3, gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool are the build dependencies for > cvsup-without-gui. > > # cd /usr/ports > # make search name="cvsup-without-gui" > Abu, I don't get that result. I only show ezm3-1.2. # cd /usr/ports # make search name="cvsup-without-gui" Port: cvsup-without-gui-16.1h_2 Path: /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui Info: General network file distribution system optimized for CVS (non-GUI version) Maint: [EMAIL PROTECTED] B-deps: ezm3-1.2 R-deps: WWW:http://www.cvsup.org/ # > If you updated your soirces/ports "cvsup" then portupgrade did what > you asked it to do. It Updated all outdated packages/ports and there > dependencies. I'm convinced that you are right. However, why don't I show the other dependencies? Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:08:56 -0800, Jay O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alec Berryman wrote: > > > Jay O'Brien on 2005-03-27 18:20:00 -0800: > > > > > >>Now, pkg_info says I have 10 packages installed; added were ezm3, > >>gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool, portupgrade,ruby and ruby18. If > >>these all required to make portupgrade or perl work, where is that > >>reference? > > > > > > They are required to build and run portupgrade. If you do a 'make search > > name=portupgrade' from /usr/ports, it will list all the dependencies. > > > > > >>PS.. I tried to install portmanager again, and this time it got the > >>files immediately and installed fine. It took about a minute, not two > >>hours. It reports that all my ports are up to date. Whew. > > > > > > That's because portupgrade did all the work :) If you had run > > portmanager before running portupgrade, you would have seen something > > similar - portmanager taking two hours and portupgrade taking almost > > no time at all. > > Alec, > > Thanks, I searched the FreeBSD Handbook for "dependency" and didn't find any > reference to "make search". I guess it is one of those things that once you > know about it you don't have to look for it any more. Unfortunately a lot > of the documentation I can review is written for those folks who already > know the answers. > > Thanks for the heads up on 'make search', even if I can't find a complete > description of the command. I find that it is referenced in the manual, > however. > > I see that several of the packages that were installed aren't listed in the > dependencies for portupgrade. Only the two ruby programs are listed. ezm3, gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool are the build dependencies for cvsup-without-gui. # cd /usr/ports # make search name="cvsup-without-gui" If you updated your soirces/ports "cvsup" then portupgrade did what you asked it to do. It Updated all outdated packages/ports and there dependencies. > > Jay > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > -- Kind regards Abu Khaled ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
Alec Berryman wrote: > Jay O'Brien on 2005-03-27 18:20:00 -0800: > > >>Now, pkg_info says I have 10 packages installed; added were ezm3, >>gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool, portupgrade,ruby and ruby18. If >>these all required to make portupgrade or perl work, where is that >>reference? > > > They are required to build and run portupgrade. If you do a 'make search > name=portupgrade' from /usr/ports, it will list all the dependencies. > > >>PS.. I tried to install portmanager again, and this time it got the >>files immediately and installed fine. It took about a minute, not two >>hours. It reports that all my ports are up to date. Whew. > > > That's because portupgrade did all the work :) If you had run > portmanager before running portupgrade, you would have seen something > similar - portmanager taking two hours and portupgrade taking almost > no time at all. Alec, Thanks, I searched the FreeBSD Handbook for "dependency" and didn't find any reference to "make search". I guess it is one of those things that once you know about it you don't have to look for it any more. Unfortunately a lot of the documentation I can review is written for those folks who already know the answers. Thanks for the heads up on 'make search', even if I can't find a complete description of the command. I find that it is referenced in the manual, however. I see that several of the packages that were installed aren't listed in the dependencies for portupgrade. Only the two ruby programs are listed. Jay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question
Jay O'Brien on 2005-03-27 18:20:00 -0800: > Now, pkg_info says I have 10 packages installed; added were ezm3, > gettext, gmake, libiconv, libtool, portupgrade,ruby and ruby18. If > these all required to make portupgrade or perl work, where is that > reference? They are required to build and run portupgrade. If you do a 'make search name=portupgrade' from /usr/ports, it will list all the dependencies. > PS.. I tried to install portmanager again, and this time it got the > files immediately and installed fine. It took about a minute, not two > hours. It reports that all my ports are up to date. Whew. That's because portupgrade did all the work :) If you had run portmanager before running portupgrade, you would have seen something similar - portmanager taking two hours and portupgrade taking almost no time at all. pgpfp6T6Aj4YX.pgp Description: PGP signature
