Re: portupgrade overview

[stheg olloydson]

it was said:

>I've used portupgrade for a while without really knowing much 
>about it. I suppose thats a benefit.

>However, when it comes to really controlling the portupgrade
>processes, I find the man page of minimal use.
>
>Thats becuase the man pages seem to be written for someone who
>already knows everything that portupgrade is doing, ie there
>seems to be a lot of a priori knowledge expected of the reader.

That's the unix way :)

>I am hoping there is better documentation of portupgrade. 
>Something that specifies the reasons behind what it does -- why
>some of the switches are necessary, how to hold back upgrade of
>certain ports, how to only allow security updates to happen,
>etc.
>
>Does any such document exist?


Hello,

Try this link:
 http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html

HTH,

stheg



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade wrecked gnome!!! ~>8-(

[epilogue]

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:58:50 -0800
"Karl Agee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here is my tale of woe.
> 
> Freebsd 4.11-stable.  I upgraded my ports using portupgrade -arR after
> cvsuping and make fetchindex and portsdb -u.  Things worked, so I went
> out and did portupgrade.
> 
> But my gnome-2.8.2 install is hosed.  It starts but gives me no
> taskbars or button bars.  Just little iconlets--one on the top, the
> "quicklaunch toolbar" for a few apps I had in it, and a little
> something at the bottom which I cannot figure out what it is supposed
> to be.
> 
> I tried doing a  make deinstall of gnome and cleared everything out of
> ports/distfiles.  But it didnt require anything new I imagine all it
> needed is still laying around here, broken.
> 
> SO, my friends, I would like to get my gnome install back
> 
> --karl


http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/faq28.html

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade wrecked gnome!!! ~>8-(

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Thursday 03 March 2005 08:58 pm, Karl Agee wrote:
> Here is my tale of woe.
>
> Freebsd 4.11-stable.  I upgraded my ports using portupgrade -arR
> after cvsuping and make fetchindex and portsdb -u.  Things worked, so
> I went out and did portupgrade.
>
> But my gnome-2.8.2 install is hosed.  It starts but gives me no
> taskbars or button bars.  Just little iconlets--one on the top, the
> "quicklaunch toolbar" for a few apps I had in it, and a little
> something at the bottom which I cannot figure out what it is supposed
> to be.
>
> I tried doing a  make deinstall of gnome and cleared everything out
> of ports/distfiles.  But it didnt require anything new I imagine all
> it needed is still laying around here, broken.
>
> SO, my friends, I would like to get my gnome install back
>
> --karl
>

Next time try upgrading with sysutils/portmanager, it may even fix the 
mess you have now.

-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 - Ruby error

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:25:20PM -0500, Haulmark, Chris wrote:
> Having problems using Portupgrade utilities because of Ruby.
> 
> 
> It started last Friday and I waited for the weekend just in case the
> cvs tree will get updated with a possible fix.

/usr/ports/UPDATING (and wrap your lines at 70 characters, please).

Kris


pgpCDPQMTqsSq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade failure

[Marco Beishuizen]

On stardate Sat, 8 Jan 2005, the wise Joshua Lokken entered:
You may be able to make this problem go away by doing:
# cd /usr/ports
# make fetchindex
Yes, this did the trick. I should have read /usr/ports/UPDATING though, 
because the answer was in it...

Thanks for the answers.
Marco
--
Minnie Mouse is a slow maze learner.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade failure

[Sean]

Marco Beishuizen wrote:
Hi,
I tried to upgrade firefox with portupgrade, but it fails with the 
following error:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]># portupgrade firefox
Updating the ports index ... Generating INDEX.tmp - please 
wait..^Cfailed to generate INDEX!
index generation error
/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:482:in `open_db': database 
file error (PortsDB::DBError)
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:634:in `port'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:822:in 
`all_depends_list'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:915:in 
`tsort_build'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:907:in `each'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:907:in 
`tsort_build'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:929:in `sort_build'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:933:in 
`sort_build!'
from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:674:in `main'
from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `initialize'
from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `new'
from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `main'
from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:1845

Does anyone know what the problem is?
Thanks,
Marco
I had that problem and deleted and reinstalled ruby cured it for me.
Sean
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade failure

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 06:29:51PM +0100, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to upgrade firefox with portupgrade, but it fails with the 
> following error:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]># portupgrade firefox
> Updating the ports index ... Generating INDEX.tmp - please wait..^Cfailed 
> to generate INDEX!
> index generation error
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:482:in `open_db': database 
> file error (PortsDB::DBError)
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:634:in `port'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:822:in 
> `all_depends_list'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:915:in `tsort_build'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:907:in `each'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:907:in `tsort_build'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:929:in `sort_build'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:933:in `sort_build!'
> from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:674:in `main'
> from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `initialize'
> from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `new'
> from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `main'
> from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:1845
> 
> Does anyone know what the problem is?

/usr/ports/UPDATING

Kris


pgpEcB7lsQK6G.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade failure

[Joshua Lokken]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:29:51 +0100 (CET), Marco Beishuizen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to upgrade firefox with portupgrade, but it fails with the
> following error:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]># portupgrade firefox
> Updating the ports index ... Generating INDEX.tmp - please wait..^Cfailed to 
> generate INDEX!
> index generation error
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:482:in `open_db': database file 
> error (PortsDB::DBError)
>  from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:634:in `port'
>  from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:822:in 
> `all_depends_list'
>  from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:915:in `tsort_build'
>  from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:907:in `each'
>  from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:907:in `tsort_build'
>  from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:929:in `sort_build'
>  from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgdb.rb:933:in `sort_build!'
>  from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:674:in `main'
>  from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `initialize'
>  from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `new'
>  from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:207:in `main'
>  from /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade:1845
> 
> Does anyone know what the problem is?

You may be able to make this problem go away by doing:

# cd /usr/ports
# make fetchindex


-- 
Joshua Lokken
Open Source Advocate
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade system destruction?

[Andrew Sinclair]

Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 04:04:02PM +, Andrew Sinclair wrote:
 

Portupgrade makes a mess at the best of times. A recursive portupgrade 
is not so clever about dependencies, particually on a live system. On 
occasion, it even seems to tamper with core libraries which is what 
would have occured in your case.
   

Can you provide some evidence of these claims?  I'm suspicious :-)
Kris
No, I can only tell you that I tried it, and stopped using it some time
ago because of similar problems. Keep in mind I said, "seems to tamper
with."
   I had an issue where some kind of linux centric library (not
libc-client) was no longer available and several system utilities
refused to start up. I tried reinstalling linux_base but that didn't fix
it. Turned out it was a subtle change in the ports collection that
required a little more than a [cvsup; portupgrade] to fix. On previous
occasions, it attempted to upgrade 10x as many ports & dependencies as I
wanted. It was more work than a manual deinstall, cvsup, reinstall. I
came to the conclusion that automated tools are a poor excuse for not
reading /usr/ports/UPDATING   ;-)
   I usually research these problems before I say anything but figuring
that Mr Anderson required immediate assistance, I risked using the
infamous Ass-U-Me technique to speculate about the problem. Had I have
known you'd be on his case the same day, I would not have said anything.
   By the way, sorry if I offended you with the, "with all due
respect," quip Eric. I wasn't sure how to write that in a way that
didn't seem offensive.   :-)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade system destruction?

[Kris Kennaway]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 04:04:02PM +, Andrew Sinclair wrote:

> Portupgrade makes a mess at the best of times. A recursive portupgrade 
> is not so clever about dependencies, particually on a live system. On 
> occasion, it even seems to tamper with core libraries which is what 
> would have occured in your case.

Can you provide some evidence of these claims?  I'm suspicious :-)

Kris

pgp1QVBAUDGAF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade dialogs...

[RW]

On Tuesday 04 January 2005 12:21, Daniel Bye wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 12:24:43PM +0100, Christian Tischler wrote:
> > Hi,
> > when I run portupgrade to get my server up to date (CVS of
> > 4.9-Release),  everything works fine and smooth, until any of the ports
> > pops up an dialog and asks me what I want to compile in (e.g. cups
> > asking me about what drivers I want to install and so on).
> >
> > Now my question: Is there a way to work arround this? As my server does
> > not have a very decent CPU updating takes quite some time, and I do not
> > sit in front of my terminal all the time :-) and due to the dialogs
> > waiting for my input the update is running for three days by now...
> >
> > So any suggestions?
>
> In addition to what Stijn and Kent have already said, you can override
> the defaults by setting an appropriate value in MAKE_ARGS in
> /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf.  For example, I have this set for Samba:
>
> MAKE_ARGS = {
> 'net/samba*' => [
> 'BATCH=yes',
> 'WITH_UTMP=yes',
> 'WITH_SYSLOG=yes',
> 'WITHOUT_CUPS=yes',
> 'WITH_RECYCLE=yes',
>   ],
> }
>
> At each subsequent upgrade, the configured set of options will be passed
> to the ports system.

From man ports

BATCH If defined, only operate on a port if it can be installed
   100% automatically.

So you may find that not all your ports are upgraded.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade dialogs...

[Daniel Bye]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 12:24:43PM +0100, Christian Tischler wrote:
> Hi,
> when I run portupgrade to get my server up to date (CVS of 
> 4.9-Release),  everything works fine and smooth, until any of the ports 
> pops up an dialog and asks me what I want to compile in (e.g. cups 
> asking me about what drivers I want to install and so on).
> 
> Now my question: Is there a way to work arround this? As my server does 
> not have a very decent CPU updating takes quite some time, and I do not 
> sit in front of my terminal all the time :-) and due to the dialogs 
> waiting for my input the update is running for three days by now...
> 
> So any suggestions?

In addition to what Stijn and Kent have already said, you can override
the defaults by setting an appropriate value in MAKE_ARGS in
/usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf.  For example, I have this set for Samba:

MAKE_ARGS = {
'net/samba*' => [
'BATCH=yes',
'WITH_UTMP=yes',
'WITH_SYSLOG=yes',
'WITHOUT_CUPS=yes',
'WITH_RECYCLE=yes',
  ],
}

At each subsequent upgrade, the configured set of options will be passed
to the ports system.

I find this aspect of portupgrade very useful.

HTH

Dan

-- 
Daniel Bye

PGP Key: ftp://ftp.slightlystrange.org/pgpkey/dan.asc
PGP Key fingerprint: 3B9D 8BBB EB03 BA83 5DB4 3B88 86FC F03A 90A1 BE8F
 _
  ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
 - against HTML, vCards and  X
- proprietary attachments in e-mail / \


pgpB5A0VaXzhu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade dialogs...

[Christian Tischler]

Thanks for the quick answers.
christian
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade dialogs...

[Kent Stewart]

On Tuesday 04 January 2005 03:24 am, Christian Tischler wrote:
> Hi,
> when I run portupgrade to get my server up to date (CVS of
> 4.9-Release),  everything works fine and smooth, until any of the
> ports pops up an dialog and asks me what I want to compile in (e.g.
> cups asking me about what drivers I want to install and so on).
>
> Now my question: Is there a way to work arround this? As my server
> does not have a very decent CPU updating takes quite some time, and I
> do not sit in front of my terminal all the time :-) and due to the
> dialogs waiting for my input the update is running for three days by
> now...
>
> So any suggestions?

BATCH=YES

In your /etc/make.conf does wonders :).

Kent 
>
> thx in advance
>
> Christian
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

-- 
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade dialogs...

[Stijn Hoop]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 12:24:43PM +0100, Christian Tischler wrote:
> Hi,
> when I run portupgrade to get my server up to date (CVS of 
> 4.9-Release),  everything works fine and smooth, until any of the ports 
> pops up an dialog and asks me what I want to compile in (e.g. cups 
> asking me about what drivers I want to install and so on).
> 
> Now my question: Is there a way to work arround this? As my server does 
> not have a very decent CPU updating takes quite some time, and I do not 
> sit in front of my terminal all the time :-) and due to the dialogs 
> waiting for my input the update is running for three days by now...
> 
> So any suggestions?

Add

BATCH=yes

to /etc/make.conf, or to MAKE_ARGS in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf.

Note that you will get defaults for options in ports unless also specified
in those same places.

HTH,

--Stijn

-- 
My server has more fans than Britney.
-- Steve Warwick, from a posting at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgp5b54rkZpCO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade system destruction?

[Andrew Sinclair]

Moved to freebsd-questions by Andrew Sinclair. Eric Anderson wrote:
I have a few dedicated servers at a hosting company (about 3 hours 
drive time away). On one of the systems I ran a 'portupgrade -arR' 
this morning, and then disconnected (I ran it in a screen session). 
About an hour later, I realized I could not log in anymore via ssh. 
Seems that I can connect, but my passwords fail (permission denied). I 
can't FTP in, or check mail with any username/password combos. Even my 
preshared SSH keys do not work. When connecting via POP, I get this 
message:

Connected to hostname.
Escape character is '^]'.
/usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libc-client4.so.8" not found
Connection closed by foreign host.
Can anyone help me figure out what may have gone wrong? And even how I 
might be able to fix it remotely, or walk someone through a fix?

Portupgrade makes a mess at the best of times. A recursive portupgrade 
is not so clever about dependencies, particually on a live system. On 
occasion, it even seems to tamper with core libraries which is what 
would have occured in your case.

With all due respect, you better have a disaster recovery plan.
You said one of the systems. That's a good sign. Core library 
dependancies like libc are a bitch to deal with. My approach would be to 
reinstall a release on the existing system image, then restore the 
overwritten /etc files from a recent backup or an identical server. 
First, install the same release version on your PC. Build a custom 
kernel for the server (it's better to monitor the build locally). 
Tarball the files to be installed, send it to work and get one of the 
admins to do the following:

1. Burn your chosen release CD
2. Insert into affected servers slot-load and reboot, reinstalling 
everything (including sources)
2. Extract the kernel and LKM's tarball you uploaded to /
3. Restore /etc from backup.
4. Reboot and watch for errors on the console

This should get you running again but you might have to fix some ports 
manually. The reason I didn't suggest restoring your complete OS from 
backup is because an older version may not like your ports. I think it 
saves time but it's your call.
___
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

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Saturday 01 January 2005 04:30 am, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> On 28 Dec Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > Portmanager only addresses that one issue and for the forseeable
> > future that is where all the focus will be, only on correctly
> > updating ports.
>
> Am I to understand correctly that portmanager _always_ updates ALL
> the old ports? A 'pormanager -u sylpheed' is not possible then?

correct, for now. I like the idea of what your suggestion though I 
think, if you mean being able to upgrade on port and its dependencies.

-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

[Dick Hoogendijk]

On 28 Dec Michael C. Shultz wrote:

> Portmanager only addresses that one issue and for the forseeable
> future that is where all the focus will be, only on correctly updating
> ports.

Am I to understand correctly that portmanager _always_ updates ALL the
old ports? A 'pormanager -u sylpheed' is not possible then?

-- 
dick -- http://www.nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.10 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody)
+ Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja
___
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

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Tuesday 28 December 2004 10:03 am, you wrote:
> Does portmanager handle packages? If not any plans to do so?  I would
> be happy to help with testing.

portmanager only handles packages in that it builds back up packages of
each port it updates, these packages are correctly build for your 
specific system.  The problem with packages that you down load is
they have to be built for the lowest common denominator, ie. lowest
cpu that most are likely to have (486?, 586?), no options, etc, and they 
are usually built with out of date dependencies.

As a test, install a package not allready on your system with a lot of 
dependencies like misc/sword for example then run portmanager.

You'll see portmanager find everything about that package that is wrong 
for your system and then correct it, and it will also end up rebuilding 
misc/sword and making a new package of it.  That new package will be 
built correctly for your system.

After you are familiar with how portmanager works and if you still
want to help with testing then yes I am very interested, please let me
know.

-Mike


>
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > > > Portupgrade has one serious flaw in my opinion and that is
> > > > running something like pkgdb -F damages the port installation
> > > > database as far as I'm concerned.  It causes the data base to
> > > > say ports were built with dependency ports that they were 
> > > > never really built with.  Portmanager only addresses that one
> > > > issue and for the forseeable future that is where all the focus
> > > > will be, only on correctly updating 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

[doug]

Does portmanager handle packages? If not any plans to do so?  I would be happy
to help with testing.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Michael C. Shultz wrote:

> > > Portupgrade has one serious flaw in my opinion and that is running
> > > something like pkgdb -F damages the port installation database as
> > > far as I'm concerned.  It causes the data base to say ports were
> > > built with dependency ports that they were  never really built
> > > with.  Portmanager only addresses that one issue and for the
> > > forseeable future that is where all the focus will be, only on
> > > correctly updating 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 time, xorg ports

[Jay O'Brien]

Kirk Strauser wrote:

> On Saturday 25 December 2004 12:29, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> 
> 
>>But it is there, so it will stay.
> 
> 
> I doesn't *have* to stay, though:
> 
> 1) Add 'WITHOUT_X11="YES"' to /etc/make.conf .
> 2) Use You can use 'pkg_info -rR xorg-[whatever]' to see which ports depend 
> on a each of the X.org ports.
> 
> For each "dependent" port, there will be three possible states:
> 
> 1) You don't use it anymore (eg you used to use Firefox, but haven't in a 
> long time) and no other port depends on it.  If this is true, then use 
> pkg_delete to remove that port.
> 
> 2) You still use it, but don't use the X11 version of it (eg you want to use 
> ImageMagick for automated image processing, but don't need the 'display' 
> command which depends on X.org).  In this case, you can rebuild the port 
> and with WITHOUT_X11="YES" setting above will remove its dependency on 
> X.org.
> 
> 3) You still the X11 version of it.  In this case, you won't be removing 
> X.org any time soon.
> 
> Note that in case #2 above, you don't necessarily have to rebuild it *right 
> now*.  A lot of ports are updated regularly and might be updated the next 
> time you run portupgrade anyway.  If removing X.org isn't a high priority, 
> then you can always check back every month or so to see when the list of 
> packages that need X11 is small enough that you can force-upgrade them in a 
> reasonably short amount of time.
> 
> Also note that this general approach works for pretty much any other large 
> system that you might want to remove, not just X.org.

Kirk,

Thanks for answering questions I didn't know how to ask. However, now 
that I realize I have xorg installed, I've been playing with it and I 
think I'll keep it around for now. I may even install Mozilla or Firefox.

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 time, xorg ports

[Kirk Strauser]

On Saturday 25 December 2004 12:29, Jay O'Brien wrote:

> But it is there, so it will stay.

I doesn't *have* to stay, though:

1) Add 'WITHOUT_X11="YES"' to /etc/make.conf .
2) Use You can use 'pkg_info -rR xorg-[whatever]' to see which ports depend 
on a each of the X.org ports.

For each "dependent" port, there will be three possible states:

1) You don't use it anymore (eg you used to use Firefox, but haven't in a 
long time) and no other port depends on it.  If this is true, then use 
pkg_delete to remove that port.

2) You still use it, but don't use the X11 version of it (eg you want to use 
ImageMagick for automated image processing, but don't need the 'display' 
command which depends on X.org).  In this case, you can rebuild the port 
and with WITHOUT_X11="YES" setting above will remove its dependency on 
X.org.

3) You still the X11 version of it.  In this case, you won't be removing 
X.org any time soon.

Note that in case #2 above, you don't necessarily have to rebuild it *right 
now*.  A lot of ports are updated regularly and might be updated the next 
time you run portupgrade anyway.  If removing X.org isn't a high priority, 
then you can always check back every month or so to see when the list of 
packages that need X11 is small enough that you can force-upgrade them in a 
reasonably short amount of time.

Also note that this general approach works for pretty much any other large 
system that you might want to remove, not just X.org.
-- 
Kirk Strauser


pgpMhC85Wxo41.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Harlan Stenn]

I looked at pkgtools.conf, and I don't see a way to do what I want there.

My goal here is to make it *easy* for somebody to update the installed
ports on a machine.

Even if we could use MAKE_ARGS in pkgtools.conf to try and do this that
does not solve the problem I am seeing.

(There is a bigger problem here - if one uses MAKE_ARGS and wraps a
package tarball, one cannot subsequently tell how the package tarball
was built.  It makes sense then to always create a new port that contains
the local mods and name it accordingly.)

And it's lame to put information in pkgtools.conf that will need to be
duplicated in a ports/*/Makefile.local.

Looks like I get to learn ruby, huh?

H
--
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 07:38:10PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I think a fair number of people would like to see it.
>
> It would make it Lots Easier for people to upgrade their systems.
>
> There are packages where it makes lots of sense to use the prebuilt ones.
>
> Now that I think the only feature I want is for it to "don't fetch if
> there is a Makefile.local" I'll see if I can code it up and submit it.
>
> Or is there a better way to handle building a port with local modifications
> besides using a Makefile.local file?

There's an alternative way, which is to use pkgtools.conf (see the
sample file).  You might be able to achieve what you want that way.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Chris]

Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:41:04PM -0600, Chris wrote:

Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.

Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P
and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a
specific situation.
Kris

Again, from the manpage ...
"-x GLOB

Well now - that didn't format like I expected. Sorry about that. 
Nonetheless, I think the manpage reflects the point.

You're the one who's really not paying attention..see the first line
of the message, which was the response when I suggested -x.  Are we
all caught up now?  Good :)
Kris

Hahaha - Leave me alone. It's been a long and tiring Xmas (Yeah, that's 
it - that's the ticket).

--
Best regards,
Chris
A complex system designed from scratch never works and
cannot be patched up to make it work.  You have to start
over, beginning with a working simple 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 -P and local changes

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 07:38:10PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I think a fair number of people would like to see it.
> 
> It would make it Lots Easier for people to upgrade their systems.
> 
> There are packages where it makes lots of sense to use the prebuilt ones.
> 
> Now that I think the only feature I want is for it to "don't fetch if
> there is a Makefile.local" I'll see if I can code it up and submit it.
> 
> Or is there a better way to handle building a port with local modifications
> besides using a Makefile.local file?

There's an alternative way, which is to use pkgtools.conf (see the
sample file).  You might be able to achieve what you want that way.

Kris

pgp6kZYAhL2wG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:41:04PM -0600, Chris wrote:

> >Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.

> >>Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P
> >>and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a
> >>specific situation.
> >>
> >>Kris
> >
> >
> >Again, from the manpage ...
> >
> >"-x GLOB

> Well now - that didn't format like I expected. Sorry about that. 
> Nonetheless, I think the manpage reflects the point.

You're the one who's really not paying attention..see the first line
of the message, which was the response when I suggested -x.  Are we
all caught up now?  Good :)

Kris


pgpQpAh3ze9Lj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Chris]

Chris wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:22:04PM -0600, Chris wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:

Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.
I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt
packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the 
tree, as
a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local 
changes.

That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think
portupgrade can do it.
Kris

A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model...
Pay close attention to item 1 (-P).
I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine 
job detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this 
thread should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage.

Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P
and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a
specific situation.
Kris

Again, from the manpage ...
"-x GLOB
 --exclude GLOB 
Exclude packages matching the specified glob
pattern.  Exclusion is performed after 
recursing dependency in response to -r
and/or -R, which means, for example, the
following command will upgrade all the
packages depending on XFree86 but leave
XFree86 as it is:
portupgrade -rx XFree86 XFree86"


Well now - that didn't format like I expected. Sorry about that. 
Nonetheless, I think the manpage reflects the point.

--
Best regards,
Chris
You may be recognized soon.
Hide!
If they find you, lie.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Harlan Stenn]

I think a fair number of people would like to see it.

It would make it Lots Easier for people to upgrade their systems.

There are packages where it makes lots of sense to use the prebuilt ones.

Now that I think the only feature I want is for it to "don't fetch if
there is a Makefile.local" I'll see if I can code it up and submit it.

Or is there a better way to handle building a port with local modifications
besides using a Makefile.local file?

Thanks...

H
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Chris]

Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:22:04PM -0600, Chris wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:

Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.
I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt
packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as
a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local 
changes.

That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think
portupgrade can do it. 

Kris
A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model...
Pay close attention to item 1 (-P).
I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine job 
detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this thread 
should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage.

Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P
and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a
specific situation.
Kris
Again, from the manpage ...
"-x GLOB
 --exclude GLOB Exclude packages matching the specified 
glob   			pattern.  Exclusion is 
performed after 	recursing dependency in response to -r 	 
 and/or -R, which means, for example, the 	following command 
will upgrade all the 	packages depending on XFree86 
but leave 	XFree86 as it is:
			portupgrade -rx XFree86 XFree86"

--
Best regards,
Chris
You may be recognized soon.
Hide!
If they find you, lie.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:22:04PM -0600, Chris wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> >
> >>Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.
> >>
> >>I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt
> >>packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as
> >>a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local 
> >>changes.
> >
> >
> >That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think
> >portupgrade can do it. 
> >
> >Kris
> 
> A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model...
> Pay close attention to item 1 (-P).
> 
> I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine job 
> detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this thread 
> should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage.

Er..the thread started with a question from a user who *knows about -P
and uses it*, but doesn't want portupgrade to fetch packages in a
specific situation.

Kris


pgpHquYKbEqWu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Chris]

Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.
I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt
packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as
a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes.

That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think
portupgrade can do it. 

Kris
A snippet from the portupgrade manpage. Note the execution model...
Pay close attention to item 1 (-P).
I dunno - it's seems fairly clear to me that the manpage does a fine job 
detailing just what parm does when. Again, to me at least - this thread 
should have halted by telling the user to view the manpage.

Just my slice of cheescake.  Now read below from the manpage...
TECHNICAL DETAILS
 portupgrade upgrades installed packages via ports or packages without
 necessarily having to reinstall required or dependent packages by 
adjust-
 ing the package registry database.

 The procedures it takes are briefly shown as below:
1.   If -P is not given, jump to 4.  Otherwise search the local
 directories listed in PKG_PATH for a newer package tarball.
 If found, jump to 5.
2.   Fetch the latest package from a remote site using
 pkg_fetch(1).  If the fetched package is the latest, jump to
 5.  If -P is given twice (i.e.  -PP) and the fetched package
 is not the latest but at least newer than the current instal-
 lation, jump to 5.
3.   If -P is given twice (i.e.  -PP), stop the task.
4.   Build the corresponding port of the given installed package.
5.   Fix the dependency information of the packages that depend on
 the given package.
6.   Back up the current installation of the given package using
 pkg_create(1).  Note that the backup tarball will be very
 large if the package is a big monster like XFree86.  Please
 ensure you have sufficient disk space (refer to the ENVIRON-
 MENT section to know where) to save the backup tarball. (Per-
 haps a new option to omit backups will be added in the future)
7.   Back up the current package registration files of the given
 package.
8.   Uninstall the given package forcibly, preserving shared
 libraries unless -u is specified.
9.   Install the new version via ports or packages, depending on
 the conditions in 1, 2 and 3.
10.  If the installation fails,
10.1.   Restore the old installation backed up in 6.
10.2.   Restore the old package registration files
backed up in 7.
10.3.   Revert the dependency information fixed in 5.
11.  Remove the dependencies obsoleted in this upgrade.
12.  Run ``portsclean -L'' to delete duplicate libraries and put
 away old libraries.
13.  Run ``pkgdb -aF'' to fix up stale dependencies and reconstruct
 +REQUIRED_BY files.
--
Best regards,
Chris
To erase a line you've written at the command prompt, use "Ctrl-U".
-- Dru <[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 -P and local changes

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.
> 
> I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt
> packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as
> a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes.

That's a very specific requirement, then, and I don't think
portupgrade can do it. 

Kris


pgp8liBtYEciW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Harlan Stenn]

Neither -x nor HOLD_PKGS is what I want.

I *want* to upgrade the software, I just do not want to FETCH prebuilt
packages for any package that has a Makefile.local file in the tree, as
a Makefile.local file means I want to build that package with local changes.

H
--
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Yes, but that means I have to remember to build and package the ports
> first, before I do anything else, and that implies I have to handle any
> changed prerequisite packages as well.

I thought that's what you were asking for.

> If a way can be found to say "Do not fetch these packages" then this will
> become a much easier process.

portupgrade -x or set HOLD_PKGS.

Kris
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBz13CWry0BWjoQKURAmQ4AKClNMfFaC6lbJbvKyCXZ/PbJFsGUgCfT+f8
RdKaLt13sz4+G6u6m8/AyGM=
=P4CC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Yes, but that means I have to remember to build and package the ports
> first, before I do anything else, and that implies I have to handle any
> changed prerequisite packages as well.

I thought that's what you were asking for.

> If a way can be found to say "Do not fetch these packages" then this will
> become a much easier process.

portupgrade -x or set HOLD_PKGS.

Kris

pgp3ZJtHijHWc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Harlan Stenn]

Yes, but that means I have to remember to build and package the ports
first, before I do anything else, and that implies I have to handle any
changed prerequisite packages as well.

If a way can be found to say "Do not fetch these packages" then this will
become a much easier process.

H
--
>> Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt ports
>> for these two packages?  If the packages are already there I'm fine having
>> them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local values
>> and wrapped as a package from the -p flag).

>Doesn't it use packages if they're present in the ${PACKAGES}
>directory (/usr/ports/packages by default)?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Donald J. O'Neill]

On Sunday 26 December 2004 03:04 am, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I have a couple of ports where I am using a Makefile.local to
> provide some customizations for the local environment (I think
> they are for postfix+SASL, and apache2+the experimental modules,
> but I could be mistaken) where "stock" prebuilt packages are
> available.
>
> When I update the installed packages on the box, I like to use:
>
>  portupgrade -Ppa
>
> The problem I have is that when these two ports get upgraded,
> portupgrade fetches and installs the prebuilt packages, which
> means I have to remember to then reinstall these two packages
> from the ports tree.
>
> Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch*
> prebuilt ports for these two packages?  If the packages are
> already there I'm fine having them installed (as it means they
> were built using the Makefile.local values and wrapped as a
> package from the -p flag).
>
> H
>
Hi H.

-P is telling portupgrade to check for. download and install a 
pre-built package if one is available. To my mind, stop using -P 
and you won't get pre-built packages installed by portupgrade it 
will use the ports tree to make the upgrade.
-- 
Donald J. O'Neill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'm not totally useless,
I can be used as a bad example.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 01:04:51AM -0800, Harlan Stenn wrote:

> Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt ports
> for these two packages?  If the packages are already there I'm fine having
> them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local values
> and wrapped as a package from the -p flag).

Doesn't it use packages if they're present in the ${PACKAGES}
directory (/usr/ports/packages by default)?

Kris


pgpB7f7H4WTBV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade -P and local changes

[RW]

On Sunday 26 December 2004 09:04, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I have a couple of ports where I am using a Makefile.local to provide some
> customizations for the local environment (I think they are for
> postfix+SASL, and apache2+the experimental modules, but I could be
> mistaken) where "stock" prebuilt packages are available.
>
> When I update the installed packages on the box, I like to use:
>
>  portupgrade -Ppa
>
> The problem I have is that when these two ports get upgraded, portupgrade
> fetches and installs the prebuilt packages, which means I have to remember
> to then reinstall these two packages from the ports tree.
>
> Is there a way to tell portupgrade that it should not *fetch* prebuilt
> ports for these two packages?  If the packages are already there I'm fine
> having them installed (as it means they were built using the Makefile.local
> values and wrapped as a package from the -p flag).

One thing you could do is enter them in HOLD_PKGS in pkgtools.conf, so that 
they wont be upgraded by portupgrade -a
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade time, xorg ports

[Jud]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:58:03 -0800, Jay O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
I ran portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR, and it tried several times

You dont need the -N switch, it's only used for new port installations,  
not
upgrades. Using it carelessly is a bit dangerous, you may find youself
installing ports you don't want.

Thanks, I wasn't sure about that.  I saw an example that used -N
and followed it.  I'm not clear on what -N really does, but for
now I just won't use it!
While the manual (man) pages aren't always crystal clear, the one for  
portupgrade is actually pretty good at explaining what all those letter  
options are for.  Just type at the prompt:

$ man portupgrade
You'll have a much better idea of what the options do and which ones you  
want to use for a given situation.

Jud
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade time, xorg ports

[Jay O'Brien]

RW wrote:
> On Friday 24 December 2004 21:54, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> 
>>Running FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p2 #0, i386 P3-667MHz, 512MB RAM.
>>
>>This is my first experience using portupgrade.
>>
>>I ran cvsup successfully for ports-all. I ran pkg_version -v.
>>It showed a total of 28 ports, 20 needed updating. Of those,
>>16 were xorg- ports; the others were xterm, freetype2, imake
>>and png.
>>
>>I ran portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR, and it tried several times
> 
> 
> You dont need the -N switch, it's only used for new port installations, not 
> upgrades. Using it carelessly is a bit dangerous, you may find youself 
> installing ports you don't want.


Thanks, I wasn't sure about that.  I saw an example that used -N 
and followed it.  I'm not clear on what -N really does, but for 
now I just won't use it!

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 time, xorg ports

[RW]

On Friday 24 December 2004 21:54, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> Running FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p2 #0, i386 P3-667MHz, 512MB RAM.
>
> This is my first experience using portupgrade.
>
> I ran cvsup successfully for ports-all. I ran pkg_version -v.
> It showed a total of 28 ports, 20 needed updating. Of those,
> 16 were xorg- ports; the others were xterm, freetype2, imake
> and png.
>
> I ran portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR, and it tried several times

You dont need the -N switch, it's only used for new port installations, not 
upgrades. Using it carelessly is a bit dangerous, you may find youself 
installing ports you don't want.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade time, xorg ports

[Jay O'Brien]

Frank Staals wrote:

> Jay O'Brien wrote:
> 
> 
>>albi wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>>Jay O'Brien wrote:
>>>
>>>hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>
Running FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p2 #0, i386 P3-667MHz, 512MB RAM.
 

>>>
>>>- cut for brevity 
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>
-I didn't install xorg. Why are the 16 xorg ports present?
 

>>>
>>>a fresh FreeBSD 5.3 has xorg by default instead of XFree86
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>So X is installed by default whether or not I wish to use X?
>>
>>Jay
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> No, FreeBSD prior to 5.3 had XFree86 as X-server, but since XFree86 
> changed their licenses FreeBSD switched to X.org. If you installed X.org 
> depends on what install you choose. If you choose 'minimal install' you 
> don't have X.org installed ( if you didn't do it yourself later ) but if 
> you choose 'X-user' or anything like that you do have X.org. You can 
> check it by running 'pkg_info | grep xorg. If you get something like 
> this you have installed X.org:
> 
> bash-3.00$ pkg_info | grep xorg
> xorg-clients-6.7.0_4 X client programs and related files from X.Org
> xorg-documents-6.7.0 Documentation of X11 protocol and libraries from X.Org
> xorg-fonts-100dpi-6.7.0 X.Org 100dpi bitmap fonts
> xorg-fonts-75dpi-6.7.0 X.Org 75dpi bitmap fonts
> xorg-fonts-cyrillic-6.7.0 X.Org Cyrillic bitmap fonts
> xorg-fonts-encodings-6.7.0 X.Org font encoding files
> xorg-fonts-miscbitmaps-6.7.0 X.Org miscellaneous bitmap fonts
> xorg-fonts-truetype-6.7.0 X.Org TrueType fonts
> xorg-fonts-type1-6.7.0 X.Org Type1 fonts
> xorg-fontserver-6.7.0 X font server from X.Org
> xorg-libraries-6.7.0_2 X11 libraries and headers from X.Org
> xorg-manpages-6.7.0 X.Org library manual pages
> xorg-server-6.7.0_9 X.Org X server and related programs
> xorg-vfbserver-6.7.0 X virtual framebuffer server from X.Org
> 
> Merry X-mas btw :)
> 
> 

Frank,

That's what I have. I *Thought* I had not selected X, but your words 
caused me to review my installation notes. My face is *red*. I did 
select "All system sources, binaries and X window system". My intent 
with this computer is for it to be a web and mail server; when I did 
the install I probably accepted the X because someday I want to run 
Mozilla for local html viewing. I sure didn't know the consequences 
of that selection! But it is there, so it will stay. Thanks for 
answering my question.  X is there because I asked for it!

And Merry Christmas to you too!

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

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Saturday 25 December 2004 04:53 am, Peter Schuller wrote:
> > Right now portmanager is upgrading kdelibs and I'm still using it.
> > The only problem that might occur is between the
> > deinstall/reinstall steps I'll be missing the libraries for about a
> > minute, when this happens I just wait untill its finished
> > reinstalling then continue.
> > Here is a recap of what happens:
>
> ...
>
> > I've been testing this for a year now and haven't had a problem yet
> > using a program while it is being updated.
>
> That does indeed sound perfectly painless. I failed to remember that
> there is another factor playing into my annoyance with pkg_chk -
> namely that it seems to remove dependent packages in chunks prior to
> re-installing them. So the end-result is that the system is
> completely missing several packages for extended periods of time
> while a bunch of other packages are being compiled.
>
> I don't know why this is done or exactly under what circumstances.
> But indeed, the way portmanager behaves as you described above sounds
> a lot better.
>
> > Portupgrade has one serious flaw in my opinion and that is running
> > something like pkgdb -F damages the port installation database as
> > far as I'm concerned.  It causes the data base to say ports were
> > built with dependency ports that they were  never really built
> > with.  Portmanager only addresses that one issue and for the
> > forseeable future that is where all the focus will be, only on
> > correctly updating ports.
>
> Ok. That sounds good. To be honest I have never understood why the
> dependencies seem to randombly break, requiring a lot of fiddling
> with pkgdb.

>
> I tried portmanager in the past but missed the fact of 'proper'
> upgrading of entire dependency chains. I will have another go now
> though. Thanks for the clarifications!

Thanks for giving portmanager a try! Right now it is having a problem
with conflicting ports (like some of the linux base ports) where 
portupgrade can alter the dependencies portmanager gets a little 
confused so you have to resolve the conflicts manually.  That should be 
resolved in portmanager ver 0.2.2.

-Mike

manually if they occur.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade time, xorg ports

[Jay O'Brien]

Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 01:54:04PM -0800, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> 
> 
>>I ran portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR, and it tried several times 
>>to fetch X11R6.8.1-src1.tar.gz, each time taking over an hour, 
>>and when the file failed, it failed showing a checksum mismatch. 
> 
> 
>>I tried it again today, and it was able to fetch the three 
>>remaining files. SLOW. I have a DSL connection, and usually 
>>see 1.5MB speeds or more. Two of the files came in at 6kBps, 
>>one at 26 kBps. This Portupgrade session, including downloading 
>>the files detailed below, took 3 hours and 38 minutes; 1.5 hours 
>>was spent just downloading the three files.
>>
>>>From the script file of the session:
>>=> X11R6.8.1-src(#).tar.gz doesn't seem to exist in 
>>/usr/ports/distfiles/xorg.
>>=> Attempting to fetch from ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.8.1/tars/
>>
>>files fetched and time for download:
>>filesizeend speedtime 
>>X11R6.8.1-src1.tar.gz29MB   6510 Bps 80 min
>>X11R6.8.1-src6.tar.gz  3106kB   6298 Bps  8 min
>>X11R6.8.1-src2.tar.gz  5672kB 26 kBps 4 min
>>
>>I have two questions:
>>
>>-Is this typical to see such slow download speeds
> 
> 
> Sometimes; it's not unusual for a popular ftp site to be heavily
> loaded.  There are various variables you can set to control fetching
> from different sites; see the ports(7) manpage and the comments in
> bsd.port.mk.
> 

Wow. And after I decode that somehow I have to know an alternate site.
It appeared to me that as it was fetching from x.org (see above) that 
the ftp site was not something I could change.  6500 Bps is much 
slower than an ancient dialup connection; a big waste of time, it 
appeared, as I am not using X at all.

> 
>>and for the 
>> portupgrade process to take so much time? 
> 
> 
> X is a large set of applications, so it's going to take a little while
> to compile it all :-)
> 
> 
>>-I didn't install xorg. Why are the 16 xorg ports present?
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you're asking here.

In my install of FreeBSD I did not select any flavor of X at all, and 
I would like to learn why it was installed "by default".

> 
> Kris

Thanks for your answer, it has pointed me at more things I didn't know 
were there that I have to learn about.

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 time, xorg ports

[Frank Staals]

Jay O'Brien wrote:
albi wrote:
 

Jay O'Brien wrote:
hi,
   

Running FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p2 #0, i386 P3-667MHz, 512MB RAM.
 

- cut for brevity 
   

-I didn't install xorg. Why are the 16 xorg ports present?
 

a fresh FreeBSD 5.3 has xorg by default instead of XFree86
   

So X is installed by default whether or not I wish to use X?
Jay
 

No, FreeBSD prior to 5.3 had XFree86 as X-server, but since XFree86 
changed their licenses FreeBSD switched to X.org. If you installed X.org 
depends on what install you choose. If you choose 'minimal install' you 
don't have X.org installed ( if you didn't do it yourself later ) but if 
you choose 'X-user' or anything like that you do have X.org. You can 
check it by running 'pkg_info | grep xorg. If you get something like 
this you have installed X.org:

bash-3.00$ pkg_info | grep xorg
xorg-clients-6.7.0_4 X client programs and related files from X.Org
xorg-documents-6.7.0 Documentation of X11 protocol and libraries from X.Org
xorg-fonts-100dpi-6.7.0 X.Org 100dpi bitmap fonts
xorg-fonts-75dpi-6.7.0 X.Org 75dpi bitmap fonts
xorg-fonts-cyrillic-6.7.0 X.Org Cyrillic bitmap fonts
xorg-fonts-encodings-6.7.0 X.Org font encoding files
xorg-fonts-miscbitmaps-6.7.0 X.Org miscellaneous bitmap fonts
xorg-fonts-truetype-6.7.0 X.Org TrueType fonts
xorg-fonts-type1-6.7.0 X.Org Type1 fonts
xorg-fontserver-6.7.0 X font server from X.Org
xorg-libraries-6.7.0_2 X11 libraries and headers from X.Org
xorg-manpages-6.7.0 X.Org library manual pages
xorg-server-6.7.0_9 X.Org X server and related programs
xorg-vfbserver-6.7.0 X virtual framebuffer server from X.Org
Merry X-mas btw :)
___
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 time, xorg ports

[Jay O'Brien]

albi wrote:

> Jay O'Brien wrote:
> 
> hi,
> 
> 
>>Running FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p2 #0, i386 P3-667MHz, 512MB RAM.
> 
> - cut for brevity 
> 
>>-I didn't install xorg. Why are the 16 xorg ports present?
> 
> 
> a fresh FreeBSD 5.3 has xorg by default instead of XFree86
> 

So X is installed by default whether or not I wish to use X?

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

[Peter Schuller]

> Right now portmanager is upgrading kdelibs and I'm still using it. The 
> only problem that might occur is between the deinstall/reinstall steps
> I'll be missing the libraries for about a minute, when this happens I 
> just wait untill its finished reinstalling then continue.  
> Here is a recap of what happens:
...
> I've been testing this for a year now and haven't had a problem yet
> using a program while it is being updated.

That does indeed sound perfectly painless. I failed to remember that there
is another factor playing into my annoyance with pkg_chk - namely that
it seems to remove dependent packages in chunks prior to re-installing
them. So the end-result is that the system is completely missing several
packages for extended periods of time while a bunch of other packages are
being compiled.

I don't know why this is done or exactly under what circumstances. But
indeed, the way portmanager behaves as you described above sounds
a lot better.

> Portupgrade has one serious flaw in my opinion and that is running 
> something like pkgdb -F damages the port installation database as far 
> as I'm concerned.  It causes the data base to say ports were built with 
> dependency ports that they were  never really built with.  Portmanager 
> only addresses that one issue and for the forseeable future that is 
> where all the focus will be, only on correctly updating ports.

Ok. That sounds good. To be honest I have never understood why the dependencies
seem to randombly break, requiring a lot of fiddling with pkgdb.

I tried portmanager in the past but missed the fact of 'proper' upgrading of
entire dependency chains. I will have another go now though. Thanks for
the clarifications!

-- 
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org

___
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

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Friday 24 December 2004 03:52 pm, Peter Schuller wrote:
> > That is indeed the case with portmanager. Sometimes it is a waste
> > of time to rebuild everthing when a dependency changes, and
> > sometimes it is the right thing to do, portmanager assumes it is
> > always the right thing to do. One way this has proved to be a
> > benefit is I've never had to run the special scripts when gnome is
> > updated because after running portmanager everything is already up
> > to date.
>
> Interesting. While I certainly don't mind a tool doing what's right,
> this issue which also exists with NetBSD's pkg_chk is the primary
> reason why I'm almost about to give up on it; it's just feasable to
> perform full system upgrades properly. Having your primary
> workstation half unusable for three days while the whole universe is
> rebuilding is not very nice...

Right now portmanager is upgrading kdelibs and I'm still using it. The 
only problem that might occur is between the deinstall/reinstall steps
I'll be missing the libraries for about a minute, when this happens I 
just wait untill its finished reinstalling then continue.  
Here is a recap of what happens:

original kdelibs is already installed
all of its dependencies have been updated by portmanager

make kdelibs target is run
installed kdelibs is backed up to a package for safety
kdelibs is deinstalled
  < now will I not be able to run something new that
  < is in the kdelibs
new kdelibs is reinstalled
< now I can run a new kdelibrary item
backup package is deleted
new kdelibs package is built

I've been testing this for a year now and haven't had a problem yet
using a program while it is being updated.
>
> One possible solution I have considered for pkg_chk that may also
> work for portmanager is to set up a build environment in a chroot
> where everything is properly upgraded. Either for building packages
> for all upgraded ports such that the ports installed on the real
> system can then be upgraded quickly using the packages; or
> alternatively by perhaps maintaining two separate target directories
> such that one is being used by normal applications while the other
> one is being built. One could then make the switch atomically by
> re-mounting /usr/local (or /usr/pkg in NetBSDs case).

To do this would require two targets because building one port
requires its dependencies to being installed and up to date. It would be 
a bit of work to do this and I'm not sure it would really be that 
nessessary.  I will keep an opened mind on the idea however.

>
> Is this even feasable?
>
> Is portmanager intended to fully replace portupgrade in the long run?

No. portmanager can not do something like what portupgrade's portsclean 
-D -P can do for example.

Portupgrade has one serious flaw in my opinion and that is running 
something like pkgdb -F damages the port installation database as far 
as I'm concerned.  It causes the data base to say ports were built with 
dependency ports that they were  never really built with.  Portmanager 
only addresses that one issue and for the forseeable future that is 
where all the focus will be, only on correctly updating ports.

Maybe if some talanted programmer wants to help out some day we will try 
to do other things, but right now I'm afraid if I spend time on new 
features not directly related to updating ports I'll end up letting the 
core purpose get sloppy.

> If so I would, as a user, very much value being able to upgrade all
> ports without disabling the machine in question. As it stands now, I
> much prefer portupgrade to NetBSD's pkg_chk for exactly this reason,
> even if portupgrade requires manual tweaking sometimes.

I am not familiar with NetBSD's pkg_chk, so I can't comment on it, but
now that I know it exists I will learn what I can about 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

[Peter Schuller]

> That is indeed the case with portmanager. Sometimes it is a waste
> of time to rebuild everthing when a dependency changes, and sometimes
> it is the right thing to do, portmanager assumes it is always the right 
> thing to do. One way this has proved to be a benefit is I've never
> had to run the special scripts when gnome is updated because after
> running portmanager everything is already up to date.

Interesting. While I certainly don't mind a tool doing what's right, this
issue which also exists with NetBSD's pkg_chk is the primary reason why
I'm almost about to give up on it; it's just feasable to perform full
system upgrades properly. Having your primary workstation half unusable for
three days while the whole universe is rebuilding is not very nice...

One possible solution I have considered for pkg_chk that may also work
for portmanager is to set up a build environment in a chroot where
everything is properly upgraded. Either for building packages for all
upgraded ports such that the ports installed on the real system can then
be upgraded quickly using the packages; or alternatively by perhaps
maintaining two separate target directories such that one is being
used by normal applications while the other one is being built. One
could then make the switch atomically by re-mounting /usr/local
(or /usr/pkg in NetBSDs case).

Is this even feasable?

Is portmanager intended to fully replace portupgrade in the long run? If
so I would, as a user, very much value being able to upgrade all
ports without disabling the machine in question. As it stands now,
I much prefer portupgrade to NetBSD's pkg_chk for exactly this reason,
even if portupgrade requires manual tweaking sometimes.

-- 
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade time, xorg ports

[Kris Kennaway]

On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 01:54:04PM -0800, Jay O'Brien wrote:

> I ran portupgrade -a -N -vu -rR, and it tried several times 
> to fetch X11R6.8.1-src1.tar.gz, each time taking over an hour, 
> and when the file failed, it failed showing a checksum mismatch. 

> I tried it again today, and it was able to fetch the three 
> remaining files. SLOW. I have a DSL connection, and usually 
> see 1.5MB speeds or more. Two of the files came in at 6kBps, 
> one at 26 kBps. This Portupgrade session, including downloading 
> the files detailed below, took 3 hours and 38 minutes; 1.5 hours 
> was spent just downloading the three files.
> 
> >From the script file of the session:
> => X11R6.8.1-src(#).tar.gz doesn't seem to exist in 
> /usr/ports/distfiles/xorg.
> => Attempting to fetch from ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.8.1/tars/
> 
> files fetched and time for download:
> filesizeend speedtime 
> X11R6.8.1-src1.tar.gz29MB   6510 Bps 80 min
> X11R6.8.1-src6.tar.gz  3106kB   6298 Bps  8 min
> X11R6.8.1-src2.tar.gz  5672kB 26 kBps 4 min
> 
> I have two questions:
> 
> -Is this typical to see such slow download speeds

Sometimes; it's not unusual for a popular ftp site to be heavily
loaded.  There are various variables you can set to control fetching
from different sites; see the ports(7) manpage and the comments in
bsd.port.mk.

> and for the 
>  portupgrade process to take so much time? 

X is a large set of applications, so it's going to take a little while
to compile it all :-)

> -I didn't install xorg. Why are the 16 xorg ports present?

I don't understand what you're asking here.

Kris

pgpmUhip9lJCM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade time, xorg ports

[albi]

Jay O'Brien wrote:
hi,
Running FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p2 #0, i386 P3-667MHz, 512MB RAM.
- cut for brevity 
-I didn't install xorg. Why are the 16 xorg ports present?
a fresh FreeBSD 5.3 has xorg by default instead of XFree86
___
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

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Friday 24 December 2004 07:54 am, RW wrote:
> On Friday 24 December 2004 07:38, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 December 2004 11:16 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> > > Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> > > >>I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports
> > > >> cvsup. Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
> > > >>http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?
> > > >>page =1 I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It
> > > >> errored out, telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file
> > > >> that stopped the non- english docs and ports from being loaded
> > > >> on my HD.
> > > >>
> > > >>In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it
> > > >> looks like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
> > > >>
> > > >>My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file
> > > >> prohibition, perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager
> > > >> replace portupgrade?
> > > >
> > > > portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to
> > > > date, so the refuse file is a non issue with it.
> > > >
> > > > -Mike
> > >
> > > Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager
> > > instead of portupgrade?
> >
> > All of your ports will be built with the correct dependencies, they
> > will work better leaving you less to complain about in the mail
> > lists and so you will become bored.  Because everything is working
> > exactly as it should you may begin to think you are a Maytag repair
> > man, nothing much to do, just always setting around waiting for
> > something to break.
>
> I don't use portmanager myself, but isn't it the case that
> portmanager rebuilds not just ports that have newer versions in the
> ports tree, but also all ports that recursively depend on those
> ports.

That is indeed the case with portmanager. Sometimes it is a waste
of time to rebuild everthing when a dependency changes, and sometimes
it is the right thing to do, portmanager assumes it is always the right 
thing to do. One way this has proved to be a benefit is I've never
had to run the special scripts when gnome is updated because after
running portmanager everything is already up to date.

>
> I just updated kdehier with portupgrade in about a minute. The whole
> of KDE depends on kdehier, so presumably portmanager would have taken
> several days, and kdehier isn't particularly unusual. I would see
> that as a major downside.

Here is from misc/kdehier/pkg_descr:

Utility port which installs a hierarchy of common KDE directories

So what if this port changes the location of some KDE directories?  If 
you don't also update KDE then add or update something like kdepim, 
maybe kdepim will expect files in one place due to kdehier but kdelibs 
will have them in another because you never rebuilt kdelibs when 
kdeheir changed locations around.

So even if kde takes several days to build, so what, I still use my 
system no problem for other things while portmanager is running,
when its done I'll restart X or reboot to get all the new libraries 
loaded and press on.  In the past year I've never had so much as
one kde app crash where when I used portupgrade it was a fairly regular
occurrence. 

While I don't personally use gnome I keep it on my system, and when ever 
I see everyone complaining that it doesn't work I give it a try, and it 
always does for me.  As far as UPDATING goes, the first entry in it is 
20040204, from that point to today the only thing I've had to follow in 
it is was the change to mpeg4ip   2004.
>
> When it's necessary UPDATING will suggest running portupgrade  -rf to
> force rebuilding. That kind of UPDATING entry is in a small minority,
> which suggests to me that most of the problems with ports don't stem
> from the sequence of their updating, so I can't see how portmanager
> is any kind of magic-bullet.

Perhaps you should actually try it instead of just assuming.

-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

[Joshua Lokken]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:02:30 -0800, Jay O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RW wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 24 December 2004 07:38, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> >
> >>On Thursday 23 December 2004 11:16 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> >>
> >>>Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> >>>
> On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> 
> >I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.
> >Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
> >http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page
> >=1 I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored
> >out, telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped
> >the non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
> >
> >In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it
> >looks like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
> >
> >My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,
> >perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?
> 
> portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to
> date, so the refuse file is a non issue with it.
> 
> -Mike
> >>>
> >>>Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager
> >>>instead of portupgrade?
> >>
> >>All of your ports will be built with the correct dependencies, they will
> >>work better leaving you less to complain about in the mail lists and so
> >>you will become bored.  Because everything is working exactly as it
> >>should you may begin to think you are a Maytag repair man, nothing much
> >>to do, just always setting around waiting for something to break.
> >
> >
> > I don't use portmanager myself, but isn't it the case that portmanager
> > rebuilds not just ports that have newer versions in the ports tree, but also
> > all ports that recursively depend on those ports.
> >
> > I just updated kdehier with portupgrade in about a minute. The whole of KDE
> > depends on kdehier, so presumably portmanager would have taken several days,
> > and kdehier isn't particularly unusual. I would see that as a major 
> > downside.
> >
> > When it's necessary UPDATING will suggest running portupgrade  -rf to force
> > rebuilding. That kind of UPDATING entry is in a small minority, which
> > suggests to me that most of the problems with ports don't stem from the
> > sequence of their updating, so I can't see how portmanager is any kind of
> > magic-bullet.
> >
> >  
> So portmanager rebuilds whether it needs it or not, and portupgrade
> only rebuilds when there is a later distribution of the software? The
> distinction between the two is not clear to me.

I believe that what the responder was trying to get across is
that portmanager handles the dependencies for you, where
portupgrade will only handle dependencies if you spcify the
appropriate flags on the command line, such as:

# portupgrade -rR
 
> This is my first try to update ports, and I want to set up a procedure
> for updating that I can follow in the future.

I've used portupgrade much more than portmanager.  Portupgrade
has never steered my wrong, when I have read /usr/src/UPDATING
and followed the proper procedures.

-- 
Joshua Lokken
Open Source Advocate
___
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

[Jay O'Brien]

RW wrote:

> On Friday 24 December 2004 07:38, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> 
>>On Thursday 23 December 2004 11:16 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
>>
>>>Michael C. Shultz wrote:
>>>
On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:

>I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.
>Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
>http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page
>=1 I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored
>out, telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped
>the non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
>
>In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it
>looks like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
>
>My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,
>perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?

portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to
date, so the refuse file is a non issue with it.

-Mike
>>>
>>>Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager
>>>instead of portupgrade?
>>
>>All of your ports will be built with the correct dependencies, they will
>>work better leaving you less to complain about in the mail lists and so
>>you will become bored.  Because everything is working exactly as it
>>should you may begin to think you are a Maytag repair man, nothing much
>>to do, just always setting around waiting for something to break.
> 
> 
> I don't use portmanager myself, but isn't it the case that portmanager 
> rebuilds not just ports that have newer versions in the ports tree, but also 
> all ports that recursively depend on those ports.  
> 
> I just updated kdehier with portupgrade in about a minute. The whole of KDE 
> depends on kdehier, so presumably portmanager would have taken several days, 
> and kdehier isn't particularly unusual. I would see that as a major downside.
> 
> When it's necessary UPDATING will suggest running portupgrade  -rf to force 
> rebuilding. That kind of UPDATING entry is in a small minority, which 
> suggests to me that most of the problems with ports don't stem from the 
> sequence of their updating, so I can't see how portmanager is any kind of 
> magic-bullet. 
> 
>  
So portmanager rebuilds whether it needs it or not, and portupgrade 
only rebuilds when there is a later distribution of the software? The 
distinction between the two is not clear to me. 

This is my first try to update ports, and I want to set up a procedure 
for updating that I can follow in the future.

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

[RW]

On Friday 24 December 2004 07:38, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> On Thursday 23 December 2004 11:16 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> > Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > > On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> > >>I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.
> > >>Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
> > >>http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page
> > >>=1 I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored
> > >> out, telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped
> > >> the non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
> > >>
> > >>In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it
> > >> looks like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
> > >>
> > >>My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,
> > >>perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?
> > >
> > > portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to
> > > date, so the refuse file is a non issue with it.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> >
> > Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager
> > instead of portupgrade?
>
> All of your ports will be built with the correct dependencies, they will
> work better leaving you less to complain about in the mail lists and so
> you will become bored.  Because everything is working exactly as it
> should you may begin to think you are a Maytag repair man, nothing much
> to do, just always setting around waiting for something to break.

I don't use portmanager myself, but isn't it the case that portmanager 
rebuilds not just ports that have newer versions in the ports tree, but also 
all ports that recursively depend on those ports.  

I just updated kdehier with portupgrade in about a minute. The whole of KDE 
depends on kdehier, so presumably portmanager would have taken several days, 
and kdehier isn't particularly unusual. I would see that as a major downside.

When it's necessary UPDATING will suggest running portupgrade  -rf to force 
rebuilding. That kind of UPDATING entry is in a small minority, which 
suggests to me that most of the problems with ports don't stem from the 
sequence of their updating, so I can't see how portmanager is any kind of 
magic-bullet. 

 

___
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

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Thursday 23 December 2004 11:16 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> >>I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.
> >>Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
> >>http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page
> >>=1 I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored
> >> out, telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped
> >> the non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
> >>
> >>In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it
> >> looks like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
> >>
> >>My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,
> >>perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?
> >
> > portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to
> > date, so the refuse file is a non issue with it.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager
> instead of portupgrade?
>
All of your ports will be built with the correct dependencies, they will
work better leaving you less to complain about in the mail lists and so 
you will become bored.  Because everything is working exactly as it 
should you may begin to think you are a Maytag repair man, nothing much 
to do, just always setting around waiting for something to break.

-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

[Jay O'Brien]

Michael C. Shultz wrote:

> On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> 
>>I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.
>>Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
>>http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=1
>>I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored out,
>>telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped the
>>non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
>>
>>In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it looks
>>like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
>>
>>My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,
>>perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?
> 
> 
> portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to date, so 
> the refuse file is a non issue with it.
> 
> -Mike
> 

Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager instead 
of portupgrade?

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

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.
> Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=1
> I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored out,
> telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped the
> non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
>
> In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it looks
> like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
>
> My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,
> perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?

portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to date, so 
the refuse file is a non issue with 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

[Kris Kennaway]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 10:01:58PM -0800, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup. 
> Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at 
> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=1
> I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored out, 
> telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped the non-
> english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
> 
> In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it looks 
> like it would perform the same function as portupgrade. 
> 
> My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition, 
> perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade? 

If you refuse parts of the ports collection, it's impossible for you
to build a consistent INDEX from it, which is what portsdb -uU does.
If you don't actually want to rebuild your own index, you can use
'make fetchindex' instead.

Kris


pgpZg0lZ8jRJB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade perl and openwebmail

[Noah]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:10:36 +0100, thomas leveille wrote
> > 
> > also is this make switch suppesed to be provided when building perl or
> > when building openwebmail - which port please?
> >
> 
> You need to build perl with this switch, according to the commit 
> history :
> 
> "Update to 5.8.1.
> 
> Also:
> 
> Make suidperl optional (ENABLE_SUIDPERL knob).  Switch to perlmalloc 
> by default, unless threaded perl is built, to improve performance. 
> Modernize pkg-plist (switch to SITE_PERL where possible).  Update WWW.
> 
> Many thanks to foxfair who prepared most of this update."


Hi,

how can I set perlmalloc on by default - I have never done this?

cheers,

Noah

___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade perl and openwebmail

[Lapo Nustrini]

If you have just gone from a < 5.8.1 version of Perl to the current 
5.8.5, you are probably running into the following:

(From the Openwebmail README file at 
http://www.openwebmail.org/openwebmail/doc/readme.txt )

> If you are using FreeBSD and your perl is compiled from port,
> then please note that the SUID support is disabled by default
> since the port for perl 5.8.1 or later
>
> You need to do 'make -DENABLE_SUIDPERL' in making port
Lapo

On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:50 PM, Noah Garrett Wallach wrote:
FreeBSD-4.9
perl-5.8.5
openwebmail-2.41
just portupgraded perl
now I am having difficulties reinitializing openwebmail.pl
any clues on this?
--- snip ---
# /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/openwebmail/openwebmail-tool.pl --init
Args must match #! line at /dev/fd/9 line 1.
speedy_backend[44225]: perl_parse error
speedy[44223]: Cannot spawn backend process
--- snip 
- Noah
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade perl and openwebmail

[Noah Garrett Wallach]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Lapo Nustrini wrote:
If you have just gone from a < 5.8.1 version of Perl to the current 5.8.5, 
you are probably running into the following:

(From the Openwebmail README file at 
http://www.openwebmail.org/openwebmail/doc/readme.txt )

If you are using FreeBSD and your perl is compiled from port,
then please note that the SUID support is disabled by default
since the port for perl 5.8.1 or later
You need to do 'make -DENABLE_SUIDPERL' in making port

Lapo

also is this make switch suppesed to be provided when building perl or 
when building openwebmail - which port please?

cheers,
Noah


On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:50 PM, Noah Garrett Wallach wrote:
FreeBSD-4.9
perl-5.8.5
openwebmail-2.41
just portupgraded perl
now I am having difficulties reinitializing openwebmail.pl
any clues on this?
--- snip ---
# /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/openwebmail/openwebmail-tool.pl --init
Args must match #! line at /dev/fd/9 line 1.
speedy_backend[44225]: perl_parse error
speedy[44223]: Cannot spawn backend process
--- snip 
- Noah
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade perl and openwebmail

[Noah Garrett Wallach]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Lapo Nustrini wrote:
If you have just gone from a < 5.8.1 version of Perl to the current 5.8.5, 
you are probably running into the following:

(From the Openwebmail README file at 
http://www.openwebmail.org/openwebmail/doc/readme.txt )

If you are using FreeBSD and your perl is compiled from port,
then please note that the SUID support is disabled by default
since the port for perl 5.8.1 or later
You need to do 'make -DENABLE_SUIDPERL' in making port

Lapo

thanks - I am rebuilding perl now.  is there something I can add to the 
/etc/make.conf file to make enabled SUID support everytime I rebuild perl?

cheers,
Noah


On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:50 PM, Noah Garrett Wallach wrote:
FreeBSD-4.9
perl-5.8.5
openwebmail-2.41
just portupgraded perl
now I am having difficulties reinitializing openwebmail.pl
any clues on this?
--- snip ---
# /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/openwebmail/openwebmail-tool.pl --init
Args must match #! line at /dev/fd/9 line 1.
speedy_backend[44225]: perl_parse error
speedy[44223]: Cannot spawn backend process
--- snip 
- Noah
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade, packages, and same versions

[David Syphers]

On Thursday 02 December 2004 05:54 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:33:50PM -0800, David Syphers wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 December 2004 05:23 pm, David Syphers wrote:
> > > On Thursday 02 December 2004 03:13 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > What command-line are you using?
> > >
> > > Oops, sorry for the noise. I just realized that I was giving the -u
> > > option to portupgrade, and I can understand why it can't do that
> > > without building the port. Doing it without -u works fine.
> >
> > Or not, actually. It has nothing to do with the -u option. It fails
> > whenever it has to fetch the package (which it does successfully). The
> > next time it's run, when it has the package already, it succeeds. That
> > can't be a feature, can it?
>
> Again, show us, don't tell us.

yggdrasil# portupgrade -fuPP nasm-0.98.38_1,1
--->  Checking for the latest package of 'devel/nasm'
--->  Fetching the package(s) for 'nasm-0.98.38_1,1' (devel/nasm)
--->  Fetching nasm-0.98.38_1,1
/var/tmp/nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz 100% of  133 kB  232 kBps
--->  Downloaded as nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz
--->  Identifying the package /var/tmp/nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz
--->  Saved as /usr/ports/packages/All/nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz
--->  Found a package of 'devel/nasm': nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz (nasm-0.98.38_1,1)
--->  Located a package version 0.98.38_1,1 (nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz)
** Ignoring the package, which is the same version as is installed 
(0.98.38_1,1)
** No package available: devel/nasm
** Listing the failed packages (*:skipped / !:failed)
! devel/nasm (nasm-0.98.38_1,1) (package not found)
--->  Packages processed: 0 done, 0 ignored, 0 skipped and 1 failed
yggdrasil# portupgrade -fuPP nasm-0.98.38_1,1
--->  Checking for the latest package of 'devel/nasm'
--->  Found a package of 'devel/nasm': nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz (nasm-0.98.38_1,1)
--->  Reinstalling 'nasm-0.98.38_1,1' (devel/nasm) using a package
--->  Backing up the old version
--->  Uninstalling the old version
--->  Deinstalling 'nasm-0.98.38_1,1'
[Updating the pkgdb  in /var/db/pkg ... - 185 packages 
found (-1 +0) (...) done]
pkg_info: can't find package 'nasm-0.98.38_1,1.tbz' installed or in a file!
--->  Installing the new version via the package
--->  Cleaning out obsolete shared libraries
[Updating the pkgdb  in /var/db/pkg ... - 186 packages 
found (-0 +1) . done]

-David

-- 
"To get out of the Metaphysical Void, you either have to
grasp the meaning of the universe or roll doubles twice."
 -Cecil Adams
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade, packages, and same versions

[Kris Kennaway]

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:33:50PM -0800, David Syphers wrote:
> On Thursday 02 December 2004 05:23 pm, David Syphers wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 December 2004 03:13 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > What command-line are you using?
> >
> > Oops, sorry for the noise. I just realized that I was giving the -u option
> > to portupgrade, and I can understand why it can't do that without building
> > the port. Doing it without -u works fine.
> 
> Or not, actually. It has nothing to do with the -u option. It fails whenever 
> it has to fetch the package (which it does successfully). The next time it's 
> run, when it has the package already, it succeeds. That can't be a feature, 
> can it?

Again, show us, don't tell us.

Kris


pgpvRGQ623wWn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade, packages, and same versions

[David Syphers]

On Thursday 02 December 2004 05:23 pm, David Syphers wrote:
> On Thursday 02 December 2004 03:13 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > What command-line are you using?
>
> Oops, sorry for the noise. I just realized that I was giving the -u option
> to portupgrade, and I can understand why it can't do that without building
> the port. Doing it without -u works fine.

Or not, actually. It has nothing to do with the -u option. It fails whenever 
it has to fetch the package (which it does successfully). The next time it's 
run, when it has the package already, it succeeds. That can't be a feature, 
can it?

-David

-- 
"To get out of the Metaphysical Void, you either have to
grasp the meaning of the universe or roll doubles twice."
 -Cecil Adams
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade, packages, and same versions

[David Syphers]

On Thursday 02 December 2004 03:13 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> What command-line are you using?

Oops, sorry for the noise. I just realized that I was giving the -u option to 
portupgrade, and I can understand why it can't do that without building the 
port. Doing it without -u works fine.

-David

-- 
"To get out of the Metaphysical Void, you either have to
grasp the meaning of the universe or roll doubles twice."
 -Cecil Adams
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade, packages, and same versions

[Kris Kennaway]

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:01:50PM -0800, David Syphers wrote:
> I just upgraded to 5-STABLE from an older version of 5, and wanted to rebuild 
> all my ports because of the ABI compatability breakage just before 5-RELEASE. 
> I ran across behavior in portupgrade that I don't understand - if I force an 
> upgrade because I already have the same version installed, portupgrade 
> refuses to use packages. e.g.
> 
> --->  Found a package of 'net/cvsup-without-gui': cvsup-without-gui-16.1h.tbz 
> (cvsup-without-gui-16.1h)
> --->  Located a package version 16.1h (cvsup-without-gui-16.1h.tbz)
> ** Ignoring the package, which is the same version as is installed (16.1h)
> ** No package available: net/cvsup-without-gui
> 
> What on earth is wrong with portupgrade, and is there any way of convincing 
> it 
> to use packages in this case? If I run 'portupgrade -rafP' it will merrily  
> upgrade via ports when forcing an upgrade, so why not packages?

What command-line are you using?

Kris


pgpAOuKNVoXmz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade and index

[Lowell Gilbert]

"dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most current ports.
> I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which goes much
> faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for a port the index.5
> file is regenerated and that takes an extremely long time. I was wondering
> if this is normal behavior, and what if anything i could do to speed it up?


That certainly doesn't happen to me.  Are you sure you *have* a
/usr/ports/INDEX-5 before the rebuild gets triggered?
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade and index

[RW]

On Tuesday 30 November 2004 05:58, Kent Stewart wrote:
> On Monday 29 November 2004 09:40 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:27:47PM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:57:34 -0800, Kris Kennaway
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:48:29PM -0500, dave wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most
> > > > > current ports.
> > > > > I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which
> > > > > goes much faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for
> > > > > a port the index.5 file is regenerated and that takes an
> > > > > extremely long time. I was wondering if this is normal
> > > > > behavior, and what if anything i could do to speed it up?
> > > >
> > > > make fetchindex
> > > >
> > > > Kris
> > >
> > > You can also increase the concurrency of "portsdb -U"/"make index"
> > > by setting INDEX_JOBS in /etc/make.conf.  The default number of
> > > parallel jobs is 2.  Increasing this to, say, 8, will save some
> > > time in building the index.
> >
> > In my testing 4 helped on a dual SMP machine but 8 didn't, because
> > the process was I/O bound already at 4.
>
> There isn't a "make index" that can compete with downloading an
> INDEX.bz2. I timed a make fetchindex and it required all of 11 seconds
> on my DSL line. That would work out to around 3 minutes on a dial up.

I don't think anyone in this sub-thread has read the original question 
correctly. As I understand it he saying that "make search" generates a new 
index despite having already run "make fetchindex".
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade and index

[Kent Stewart]

On Monday 29 November 2004 09:40 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:27:47PM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:57:34 -0800, Kris Kennaway
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:48:29PM -0500, dave wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most
> > > > current ports.
> > > > I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which
> > > > goes much faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for
> > > > a port the index.5 file is regenerated and that takes an
> > > > extremely long time. I was wondering if this is normal
> > > > behavior, and what if anything i could do to speed it up?
> > >
> > > make fetchindex
> > >
> > > Kris
> >
> > You can also increase the concurrency of "portsdb -U"/"make index"
> > by setting INDEX_JOBS in /etc/make.conf.  The default number of
> > parallel jobs is 2.  Increasing this to, say, 8, will save some
> > time in building the index.
>
> In my testing 4 helped on a dual SMP machine but 8 didn't, because
> the process was I/O bound already at 4.
>


There isn't a "make index" that can compete with downloading an 
INDEX.bz2. I timed a make fetchindex and it required all of 11 seconds 
on my DSL line. That would work out to around 3 minutes on a dial up.

Kent

-- 
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade and index

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:27:47PM -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:57:34 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:48:29PM -0500, dave wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most current
> > > ports.
> > > I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which goes
> > > much faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for a port
> > > the index.5 file is regenerated and that takes an extremely long
> > > time. I was wondering if this is normal behavior, and what if
> > > anything i could do to speed it up?
> > 
> > make fetchindex
> > 
> > Kris
> 
> You can also increase the concurrency of "portsdb -U"/"make index" by
> setting INDEX_JOBS in /etc/make.conf.  The default number of parallel
> jobs is 2.  Increasing this to, say, 8, will save some time in building
> the index.

In my testing 4 helped on a dual SMP machine but 8 didn't, because the
process was I/O bound already at 4.

Kris

pgpuuH6XV8Qld.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade and index

[Conrad J. Sabatier]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:57:34 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:48:29PM -0500, dave wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most current
> > ports.
> > I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which goes
> > much faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for a port
> > the index.5 file is regenerated and that takes an extremely long
> > time. I was wondering if this is normal behavior, and what if
> > anything i could do to speed it up?
> 
> make fetchindex
> 
> Kris

You can also increase the concurrency of "portsdb -U"/"make index" by
setting INDEX_JOBS in /etc/make.conf.  The default number of parallel
jobs is 2.  Increasing this to, say, 8, will save some time in building
the index.

You can save yourself a lot of headaches if you do a nightly cvsup via
cron and rebuild the index at that time.

-- 
Conrad J. Sabatier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- "In Unix veritas"
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade and index

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:48:29PM -0500, dave wrote:
> Hello,
> I've got a box that runs portupgrade to keep the most current ports.
> I've lately switched to make fetchindex vs. portsdb -uU which goes much
> faster. My problem is whenever i do a make search for a port the index.5
> file is regenerated and that takes an extremely long time. I was wondering
> if this is normal behavior, and what if anything i could do to speed it up?

make fetchindex

Kris


pgpFUZ32OWnAz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Portupgrade apache2 on 5.3-RELEASE

[Daniel Bye]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 05:50:26AM -0600, Mike Loiterman wrote:
> I'm running 5.3-RELEASE with a cvsup a few minutes old.
> 
> I'm trying to upgrade my apache-2.0.49  port via portupgrade.
> 
> This is the error I get:
> [05:30:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/local/etc]# portupgrade apache
> ** Port marked as IGNORE: www/apache2:
> : apr from ports (WITH_APR_FROM_PORTS) is no longer supported
> 
> Any ideas about how to get around this?

As far as I can tell, you only need to move /usr/local/lib/libapr-0.so
out of the way and try the upgrade again.

libapr now goes in /usr/local/lib/apache2, and the port installs an rc
script in /usr/local/etc/rc.d to merge the directory into the ldconfig
hints.

HTH

Dan

-- 
Daniel Bye

PGP Key: ftp://ftp.slightlystrange.org/pgpkey/dan.asc
PGP Key fingerprint: 3B9D 8BBB EB03 BA83 5DB4 3B88 86FC F03A 90A1 BE8F
 _
  ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
 - against HTML, vCards and  X
- proprietary attachments in e-mail / \


pgpBH6mpgPumb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Portupgrade seg. fault

[Tabor Kelly]

Michael Shafae wrote:
Hi,
I have a FreeBSD 4.10-RELEASE-p2 system which I have installed  
portupgrade--20040701_3, ruby-1.8.2.p2_1, and ruby18-bdb1-0.2.2.

Previously upgrading ports were effortless with portupgrade. Today, I  
first CVSUP'ed the ports tree, read /usr/ports/CHANGES and ran `make  
index`. Then I tried to upgrade various ports and it all failed with  
portupgrade seg-faulting.

For example:
[188] [13:15]lou% sudo portupgrade tiff
[Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb  
 in /usr/ports ... - 11959 port entries found  
.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000... 
./usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:587: [BUG] Segmentation  
fault
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd4]

Abort (core dumped)
Check (http://tabor.taborandtashell.net/serversetup/ports.html), it is 
one of the three things addressed on this page.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Portupgrade seg. fault

[Kris Kennaway]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:29:18PM -0800, Michael Shafae wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a FreeBSD 4.10-RELEASE-p2 system which I have installed  
> portupgrade--20040701_3, ruby-1.8.2.p2_1, and ruby18-bdb1-0.2.2.
> 
> Previously upgrading ports were effortless with portupgrade. Today, I  
> first CVSUP'ed the ports tree, read /usr/ports/CHANGES and ran `make  
> index`. Then I tried to upgrade various ports and it all failed with  
> portupgrade seg-faulting.
> 
> For example:
> [188] [13:15]lou% sudo portupgrade tiff
> [Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb  
>  in /usr/ports ... - 11959 port entries found  
> .1000.2000.3000.4000.5000... 
> ./usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:587: [BUG] Segmentation  
> fault
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd4]
> 
> Abort (core dumped)
> 
> I'm at a loss at why portupgrade is seg faulting. Any ideas about how  
> to fix this would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Michael
> 
> p.s. I'm not subscribed to this list so please cc me on any reply.

FAQ; see the archives.

Kris


pgpCPHLvcYKoI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade open-motif doesn't work

[Kris Kennaway]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 04:45:03PM +0100, Webtech wrote:

> ===>  open-motif-2.2.3 has known vulnerabilities:
> >> xpm -- image decoding vulnerabilities.
>   Reference: 
> 
> >> Please update your ports tree and try again.
> *** Error code 1

What is the problem here?  You have instructed FreeBSD to avoid
installing ports for which there exist known security vulnerabilities,
and it duly refused to install such a port.  If you're asking when
this will be fixed, that's up to someone to a) fix the
vulnerabilities, and b) submit an update to the port.

Kris


pgpClYt2N1bTs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade problem

[Kent Stewart]

On Tuesday 16 November 2004 11:50 am, Brian W. wrote:
>   I've been having this problem for about a week now.  I've already
> deinstalled and reinstalled the ruby, rubybdb and portupgrade ports, what
> else can I look at?  The below process takes at least an hour, its a
> k62-450. The no such user problem doesn't occur until a lot of time has
> gone by.
>
> # portupgrade -aP
> Updating the ports index ... Generating INDEX.tmp - please wait..id: www:
> no such user
> "Makefile", line 21: warning: "/usr/bin/id -u www" returned non-zero status
>   Done.
> done
> [Updating the portsdb  in /usr/ports ... - 11959 port
> entries found
> .1000.2000.3000.4000.5000/u
>sr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:587: [BUG] Segmentation fault
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd4]
>
> Abort (core dumped)
>

There is a bug in the hashing routine. It was fixed in the active branches, 
i.e., RELENG_5 and not RELEMG_5_2. For a machine of that speed, I would 
probably do a "make fetchindex". The last I read, it was bzip2'ed and is a 
600KB file. You would have to fetch it after every cvsup of ports-all. If it 
is bzip2'ed, you will have to uncompress it.

This has been anwered 100's of times. Other solutions can be found in the 
archives.

Kent
-- 
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade open-motif doesn't work

[Karel J. Bosschaart]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 04:45:03PM +0100, Webtech wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I need to upgrade open-motif from 2.2.2_2 to 2.2.3 but when I make the 
> upgrade, I've got :
> 
> zzz# portupgrade -ri open-motif-2.2.2_2
> --->  Session started at: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:40:18 +0100
> --->  Upgrade of x11-toolkits/open-motif started at: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 
> 16:40:22 +0100
> --->  Upgrading 'open-motif-2.2.2_2' to 'open-motif-2.2.3' 
> (x11-toolkits/open-motif)
> OK? [yes] yes
> --->  Build of x11-toolkits/open-motif started at: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 
> 16:40:23 +0100
> --->  Building '/usr/ports/x11-toolkits/open-motif'
> ===>  Cleaning for libiconv-1.9.2_1
> ===>  Cleaning for gettext-0.13.1_1
> ===>  Cleaning for gmake-3.80_2
> ===>  Cleaning for imake-4.4.0
> ===>  Cleaning for libtool-1.3.5_2
> ===>  Cleaning for libtool-1.5.10
> ===>  Cleaning for pkgconfig-0.15.0_1
> ===>  Cleaning for freetype2-2.1.7_3
> ===>  Cleaning for expat-1.95.8
> ===>  Cleaning for fontconfig-2.2.3,1
> ===>  Cleaning for XFree86-libraries-4.4.0_2
> ===>  Cleaning for open-motif-2.2.3
> ===>  open-motif-2.2.3 has known vulnerabilities:
> >> xpm -- image decoding vulnerabilities.
>   Reference: 
> 
> >> Please update your ports tree and try again.
> *** Error code 1
> 
> Stop in /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/open-motif.
> ** Command failed [exit code 1]: /usr/bin/script -qa 
> /tmp/portupgrade26568.0 make
> ** Fix the problem and try again.
> --->  Build of x11-toolkits/open-motif ended at: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 
> 16:40:27 +0100 (consumed 00:00:04)
> --->  Upgrade of x11-toolkits/open-motif ended at: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 
> 16:40:27 +0100 (consumed 00:00:05)
> --->  Skipping 'graphics/xpdf' (xpdf-3.00_4) because a requisite package 
> 'open-motif-2.2.2_2' (x11-toolkits/open-motif) failed (specify -k to force)
> --->  Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed)
>! x11-toolkits/open-motif (open-motif-2.2.2_2)  (unknown build 
> error)
>* graphics/xpdf (xpdf-3.00_4)
> --->  Packages processed: 0 done, 0 ignored, 1 skipped and 1 failed
> --->  Session ended at: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:40:27 +0100 (consumed 00:00:09)
> 
> Any Ideas ?

You can ignore the vulnerability by setting DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES in
your build environment (ie. 'setenv DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES="YES"' for
tcsh). However, check the reference url given above and decide if it is 
acceptable for you to install this software.

Karel.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade problem in freebsd 4.10

[Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok thanks for the detail response.  I guess my confusion came from several
places - the handbook explicity gives an example where you can refuse 
ports that aren't relevant to your environment (i refuse several such as
japanese, chinese)...

 

Hmm.  I wonder if we should consider mentioning that you don't want
to do this if you intend to make index ... I'll mention it on doc@ and see
what comes up.
Can you explain (if you know off hand) why make fetchindex would fix the
problem (it did without adding the ports)?
 

Yes.  "make fetchindex" downloaded a copy of the complete index database
from one of the ftp servers, thus bypassing the problem of "make"ing it on
your box.
As a side but unrelated question it seems that recent updates to the port
colleciton (such as mozilla, mplayer and netscape) have bad values (either
size of time stamps) for the objects they are to fetch - do you know why
this is happening (aka is it specific to me?)
thanks,
Alan
 

Hmm.  Is that "local modification time does not match remote"?
If you have downloads from fetch that have been interrupted (as
I do sometimes at home where I have a slow and occasionally unreliable
ppp link), you can fix that one by deleting the aborted files from 
/usr/ports/distfiles
and running "make install" or "make install clean" (or whatever) again.

HTH,
KDK
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade problem in freebsd 4.10

[atk2]

Ok thanks for the detail response.  I guess my confusion came from several
places - the handbook explicity gives an example where you can refuse 
ports that aren't relevant to your environment (i refuse several such as
japanese, chinese)...

Can you explain (if you know off hand) why make fetchindex would fix the
problem (it did without adding the ports)?

As a side but unrelated question it seems that recent updates to the port
colleciton (such as mozilla, mplayer and netscape) have bad values (either
size of time stamps) for the objects they are to fetch - do you know why
this is happening (aka is it specific to me?)

thanks,
Alan

  ||From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sat Nov 13 05:49:41 2004

  ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  ||>Things worked fine until last upgrade (this morning). Now I get the 
following
  ||>errors:
  ||>
  ||>pc1# !?upgr
  ||>portupgrade -ra
  ||>Updating the ports index ... Generating INDEX.tmp - please 
wait..tkscanfax-1.02: 
  ||> "/usr/ports/japanese/tk80" non-existent -- dependency list 
incomplete
  ||>===> comms/tkscanfax failed
  ||>*** Error code 1
  ||>1 error
  ||>
  ||>
  ||>*** Error code 1
  ||>-
  ||>
  ||>My refuse file has:
  ||>ports/japanese
  ||>---
  ||>
  ||>Is the above error an indication that the new portupgrade tool now 
requires 
  ||>that I download the japanese port - or is there another workaround ?
  ||>
  ||>Alan
  ||>  
  ||>


  ||It looks as if you've really answered your own question.

  ||Two Japanese ports are runtime dependencies for tkscanfax:
  
||--
  ||[EMAIL PROTECTED]/usr/ports]
  ||# make search name=tkscanfax
  ||Port:   tkscanfax-1.02
  ||Path:   /usr/ports/comms/tkscanfax
  ||Info:   Tcl/Tk frontend for fax scan/receive/send program (command is tkfax)
  ||Maint:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ||B-deps:
  ||R-deps: XFree86-libraries-4.4.0_1 expat-1.95.8 fontconfig-2.2.3,1 
  ||freetype2-2.1.7_3
  ||imake-4.4.0 ja-tcl-8.0.5_1 ja-tk-8.0.5_2 perl-5.8.5 pkgconfig-0.15.0_1


  ||And your setup violates this clause:

  ||INDEX builds are not supported with partial or out-of-date ports 
collections -- in
  ||particular, if you are using cvsup, you must cvsup the "ports-all"
  ||collection, and have no "refuse" files.


  ||You can draw your own conclusions.  I guess a couple of good questions
  ||might be 1] when did I install "tkscanfax"? and 2] at that time, was there
  ||a runtime dependency on these japanese ports, or was it added later?

  ||Kevin Kinsey
  ||DaleCo, S.P.


___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade problem in freebsd 4.10

[Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Things worked fine until last upgrade (this morning). Now I get the following
errors:
pc1# !?upgr
portupgrade -ra
Updating the ports index ... Generating INDEX.tmp - please wait..tkscanfax-1.02: 
"/usr/ports/japanese/tk80" non-existent -- dependency list incomplete
===> comms/tkscanfax failed
*** Error code 1
1 error


Before reporting this error, verify that you are running a supported
version of FreeBSD (see http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/) and that you
have a complete and up-to-date ports collection.  (INDEX builds are
not supported with partial or out-of-date ports collections -- in
particular, if you are using cvsup, you must cvsup the "ports-all"
collection, and have no "refuse" files.)  If that is the case, then
report the failure to [EMAIL PROTECTED] together with relevant
details of your ports configuration (including FreeBSD version,
your architecture, your environment, and your /etc/make.conf
settings, especially compiler flags and WITH/WITHOUT settings).
Note: the latest pre-generated version of INDEX may be fetched
automatically with "make fetchindex".

*** Error code 1
-
My refuse file has:
ports/japanese
---
Is the above error an indication that the new portupgrade tool now requires 
that I download the japanese port - or is there another workaround ?

Alan
 


It looks as if you've really answered your own question.
Two Japanese ports are runtime dependencies for tkscanfax:
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/usr/ports]
# make search name=tkscanfax
Port:   tkscanfax-1.02
Path:   /usr/ports/comms/tkscanfax
Info:   Tcl/Tk frontend for fax scan/receive/send program (command is tkfax)
Maint:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
B-deps:
R-deps: XFree86-libraries-4.4.0_1 expat-1.95.8 fontconfig-2.2.3,1 
freetype2-2.1.7_3
imake-4.4.0 ja-tcl-8.0.5_1 ja-tk-8.0.5_2 perl-5.8.5 pkgconfig-0.15.0_1

And your setup violates this clause:
INDEX builds are not supported with partial or out-of-date ports collections -- 
in
particular, if you are using cvsup, you must cvsup the "ports-all"
collection, and have no "refuse" files.
You can draw your own conclusions.  I guess a couple of good questions
might be 1] when did I install "tkscanfax"? and 2] at that time, was there
a runtime dependency on these japanese ports, or was it added later?
Kevin Kinsey
DaleCo, S.P.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade core dump fix?

[Kent Stewart]

Lowell Gilbert wrote:
"dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   New install of a 5.2.1 system, ports tree cvsupped to the latest. I was
wondering if the problem with pkgdb core dumping with portupgrade is still
occurring? If so, is there another port maintence tool equivalent? I was
really not happy when the portindex port was withdrawn.

The actual bug is in the base system, not portupgrade.  It *has* been
fixed in the base system, so you could upgrade that...
IIRC, it wasn't considered a security problem and didn't get updated in 
the older releases.

Kent
--
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA
http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade core dump fix?

[Lowell Gilbert]

"dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> New install of a 5.2.1 system, ports tree cvsupped to the latest. I was
> wondering if the problem with pkgdb core dumping with portupgrade is still
> occurring? If so, is there another port maintence tool equivalent? I was
> really not happy when the portindex port was withdrawn.

The actual bug is in the base system, not portupgrade.  It *has* been
fixed in the base system, so you could upgrade that...

-- 
Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area
http://be-well.ilk.org:8088/~lowell/
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade core dump fix?

[Kent Stewart]

On Monday 01 November 2004 08:36 pm, dave wrote:
> Hello,
> New install of a 5.2.1 system, ports tree cvsupped to the latest. I was
> wondering if the problem with pkgdb core dumping with portupgrade is still
> occurring? If so, is there another port maintence tool equivalent? I was
> really not happy when the portindex port was withdrawn.
> Thanks.
> Dave.
>  

If you search ports@, you would have found a number of solutions such as the 
following on, which I have in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf

  ENV['PKG_DBDRIVER'] = "bdb_hash" 
  ENV['PORTS_DBDRIVER'] = "bdb_hash"

You probably only need to set the one for the PORTS_*

Kent

-- 
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade core dump fix?

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Monday 01 November 2004 08:36 pm, dave wrote:
> Hello,
> New install of a 5.2.1 system, ports tree cvsupped to the latest.
> I was wondering if the problem with pkgdb core dumping with
> portupgrade is still occurring? If so, is there another port
> maintence tool equivalent? I was really not happy when the portindex
> port was withdrawn.
> Thanks.
> Dave.
>
> ___
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

sysutils/portmanager
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade and pkgtools.conf

[Daniel Bye]

On Thu, 28 October, 2004 10:55 am, Uros said:
> Hello!
>
> I'm trying to update subversion from ports and I have
> WITH parameters in my pkgtools.conf
>
> 'devel/subversion' => [
> 'WITHOUT_NEON=1',
> 'WITH_APACHE2_APR=1',
> 'WITH_BERKELEYDB=42'
> ]
>
> but when I do porupgrade subversion it looks like there was no parameters
> added to make. Because I always get error that devel/apr is not properly
> builded.
>
> Am I doing something wrong here.

As Dick has already said, the port is broken (I trust his word on that -
haven't checked far enough to confirm - interrupted the build after
confirming a hunch).  However, I just used the same set of options as you
mention above, and get this output at the start of the portinstall
session:

---># portinstall subversion
--->  Installing 'subversion-1.0.8' from a port (devel/subversion)
--->  Building '/usr/ports/devel/subversion' with make flags:
WITHOUT_NEON=1 WITH_APACHE2_APR=1 WITH_BERKELEYDB=42

So - portinstall and friends can see the options.  You are missing a
couple of commas, as already mentioned.

What section of pkgtools.conf did you put the options in?  They should go
inside MAKE_ARGS = {}

HTH

Dan

-- 
Daniel Bye

PGP Key: ftp://ftp.slightlystrange.org/pgpkey/dan.asc
PGP Key fingerprint: 3B9D 8BBB EB03 BA83 5DB4 3B88 86FC F03A 90A1 BE8F
 _
  ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
 - against HTML, vCards and  X
- proprietary attachments in e-mail / \

___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade and pkgtools.conf

[Dick Davies]

* Uros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [1054 10:54]:
> Hello!
> 
> I'm trying to update subversion from ports and I have
> WITH parameters in my pkgtools.conf
> 
> 'devel/subversion' => [
> 'WITHOUT_NEON=1',
> 'WITH_APACHE2_APR=1',
> 'WITH_BERKELEYDB=42'
> ]
>   
> but when I do porupgrade subversion it looks like there was no parameters
> added to make. Because I always get error that devel/apr is not properly
> builded.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong here.

The port is broken - google for the error message and you'll find a patch
to 1.1.0 that works (why it hasn't been committed yet is beyond me).

-- 
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - The Guide
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade and pkgtools.conf

[Nelis Lamprecht]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:55:06 +0200, Uros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I'm trying to update subversion from ports and I have
> WITH parameters in my pkgtools.conf
> 
> 'devel/subversion' => [
> 'WITHOUT_NEON=1',
> 'WITH_APACHE2_APR=1',
> 'WITH_BERKELEYDB=42'
> ]
> 

Hi,

Not sure if above was a typo but you seem to be missing a , or two:

 'devel/subversion' => [
 'WITHOUT_NEON=1',
 'WITH_APACHE2_APR=1',
 'WITH_BERKELEYDB=42',
],
  
  
Regards,
Nelis
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade recovery procedure ?

[h]

oops, nevermind that one. i forgot to read the manpage before i posted.


On Saturday 16 October 2004 17:09, h wrote:
> hi all,
>
> my old laptop has been upgrading ports overnight but all updates
> failed because portupgrade was bork and couldn't deinstall any old port.
>
> i now fixed it, but how do i recover all ports that were ready to install ?
> if i do portupgrade -a again, it will make clean each port and start again
> ... and reinstalling them one by one is painful.
> ___
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade (pkgdb) question (2nd try)

[epilogue]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:52:57 -0400
"Bobb Shires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> (dang webmail thing mangled my message. Sorry. Trying again)
> 
> pkgdb -F is asking me a question I don't understand. 
> What should I do here? 
> 
> === [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root/supfiles 24 -> # pkgdb -F
> --->  Checking the package registry database
> Stale origin: 'devel/autoconf257': perhaps moved or obsoleted.
> -> The port 'devel/autoconf257' was removed on 2004-07-01 because:
> "autotools cleanup"
> -> Hint:  autoconf-2.57_1 is required by the following package(s):
> kdevelop-3.0.3
> kde-3.2.2
> automake-1.7.5_1
> -> Hint: checking for overwritten files...
>  -> No files installed by autoconf-2.57_1 have been overwritten by
>  other packages.
> Deinstall autoconf-2.57_1 ? [no]

i believe that this article may help you to feel more comfortable with
such questions:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/11/29/Big_Scary_Daemons.html

while you're there, bookmark:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/q/all_bsd_articles

...and spend a while.  you will likely find more than one helpful and
informative article.


hth,
epi

> This is a fresh installation of 4.10-REL immediately 
> following a cvsup. Thanks. 
> 
> ___
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> 
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade (pkgdb) question (2nd try)

[Matthew Seaman]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:52:57PM -0400, Bobb Shires wrote:
> (dang webmail thing mangled my message. Sorry. Trying again)
> 
> pkgdb -F is asking me a question I don't understand. 
> What should I do here? 
> 
> === [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root/supfiles 24 -> # pkgdb -F
> --->  Checking the package registry database
> Stale origin: 'devel/autoconf257': perhaps moved or obsoleted.
> -> The port 'devel/autoconf257' was removed on 2004-07-01 because:
> "autotools cleanup"
> -> Hint:  autoconf-2.57_1 is required by the following package(s):
> kdevelop-3.0.3
> kde-3.2.2
> automake-1.7.5_1
> -> Hint: checking for overwritten files...
>  -> No files installed by autoconf-2.57_1 have been overwritten by other
>  packages.
> Deinstall autoconf-2.57_1 ? [no]
> 
> 
> This is a fresh installation of 4.10-REL immediately 
> following a cvsup. Thanks. 

Did you cvsup the latest ports?  Or is this the ports tree as supplied
on the 4.10-RELEASE installation media?  I guess the former, because
the latter should at least be self consistent.

You need to either build or download a recent /usr/ports/INDEX to go
with that -- the INDEX file committed to the ports tree is not updated
very often nowadays.  To build an index:

# cd /usr/ports
# make index

and then wait for 15-20 minutes.  Otherwise you can download a
recently built index file by:

# make fetchindex

Then rerun pkgdb(1) --- tell it not to deinstall autoconf this time
round.  Then do portupgrade as usual.  Once you've updated your system
all of the pkgs that now depend on it should have been replaced by
updated versions depending on a different version of autoconf.
Although updating that kde package will take quite a bit of compiling.
You can then deinstall autoconf-2.57_1 safely.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   26 The Paddocks
  Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK


pgpTHWvzT1DHY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: portupgrade problem

[Vince Hoffman]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 04:05:17PM +0100, Vince Hoffman wrote:
Hi all,
Got a port upgrade problem here, ruby is dumping core during a
portsdb -uU (and thus any time it tries to update the portsdb.
<>
any suggestions welcome
Gawd.  Not this *again*.  Did you try searhing the web at all?
  http://freebsd.rambler.ru/srch?words=%5BBUG%5D+Bus+Error+%3E+ruby+1.8.2+%282004-07-29%29+%5Bi386-freebsd5%5D+solution&set=freebsd
Doh no, since i try and read as much of -questions and -current I 
thought I would have caught it on the lists ;)
Thanks for the help (again)

Vince
Anyhow, a work-around is to:
   % setenv PORTS_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash
and then do all your portupgrade stuff as usual.
The problem is with the bdb1_btree functions in the base system.  A
fix has been committed to HEAD, RELENG_4 and RELENG_5.  It won't be
applied to RELENG_5_2, so either you're going to have to extract the
patch yourself and apply it manually, or you can upgrade to one of the
5.3-BETAs.
   
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/db/btree/bt_split.c.diff?r1=1.5&r2=1.7
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   26 The Paddocks
 Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: portupgrade problem

[Matthew Seaman]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 04:05:17PM +0100, Vince Hoffman wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Got a port upgrade problem here, ruby is dumping core during a 
> portsdb -uU (and thus any time it tries to update the portsdb.
> only noticed it today but i did upgrade ruby recently so i tried following 
> the emergency recovery part in /usr/port/UPDATING and did
> pkg_delete portupgrade-\*
> pkg_delete -r ruby-\*
> then cd /usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade
> make install clean
> 
> but no joy, i still get the same error 
> -cut portupgrade error test--
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [/root/cvsup-files] [13:59] 
> #portsdb -uU
> Updating the ports index ... Generating INDEX.tmp - please wait..test: <: 
> unexpected operator
> Warning: Duplicate INDEX entry: freeciv-gtk2-1.14.1
> Warning: Duplicate INDEX entry: mod_jk2-apache2-2.0.2
> Warning: Duplicate INDEX entry: mod_rpaf-ap2-0.5
>  Done.
> done
> [Updating the portsdb  in /usr/ports ... - 11732 port 
> entries found 
> .1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.6000.7000.8000/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb:587:
>  
> [BUG] Bus Error
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]
> 
> Abort (core dumped)
> --end of port upgrade error text--
> 
> uname -a
> 
> FreeBSD lobster.unsane.co.uk 5.2.1-RELEASE-p9 FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p9 #2: 
> Fri Sep 17 21:45:48 BST 2004 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/UNSANE  i386
> 
> (14:40:05 <~>) 0 $ ruby -v
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]
> 
> any suggestions welcome

Gawd.  Not this *again*.  Did you try searhing the web at all?

   
http://freebsd.rambler.ru/srch?words=%5BBUG%5D+Bus+Error+%3E+ruby+1.8.2+%282004-07-29%29+%5Bi386-freebsd5%5D+solution&set=freebsd
 

Anyhow, a work-around is to:

% setenv PORTS_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash

and then do all your portupgrade stuff as usual.  

The problem is with the bdb1_btree functions in the base system.  A
fix has been committed to HEAD, RELENG_4 and RELENG_5.  It won't be
applied to RELENG_5_2, so either you're going to have to extract the
patch yourself and apply it manually, or you can upgrade to one of the
5.3-BETAs.


http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/db/btree/bt_split.c.diff?r1=1.5&r2=1.7

Cheers,

Matthew 

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   26 The Paddocks
  Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK


pgpSRzLsCzIuN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Portupgrade problem, possible pkgdb problem?

[Mire, John]

Thanks, guess it's time to use the work around, the env setting worked fine.





--
"Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny"

John Mire: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Network Administration
318-675-5434  LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport 


-Original Message-
From: Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Mire, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Matt Navarre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thu Oct 07 12:41:17 2004
Subject: Re: Portupgrade problem, possible pkgdb problem?

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:45:46AM -0500, Mire, John wrote:
> I'm still getting this error after a cvsup+buildworld, a make fetchindex
and
> I have deleted /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db and rebuilt it, what's the patch?:
> 
> test# uname -v
> FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p11 #12: Wed Oct  6 17:13:13 CDT 2004
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/TEST 
> test# cd /usr/ports
> test# make fetchindex
> Receiving INDEX-5 (5881230 bytes): 100%
> 5881230 bytes transferred in 16.9 seconds (339.01 kBps)
> test# portupgrade -R sudo
> [Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb
>  in /usr/ports ... - 11735 port entries found
>
.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.60
>
00.7000.8000/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb
> :587: [BUG] Bus Error
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]
> 
> Abort (core dumped)
> test# rm /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db
> test# portupgrade -R sudo
> [Rebuilding the pkgdb  in /var/db/pkg ... - 54 packages
> found (-0 +54) ..
done]
> [Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb
>  in /usr/ports ... - 11735 port entries found
>
.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.60
>
00.7000.8000/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb
> :587: [BUG] Bus Error
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]
> 
> Abort (core dumped)
> test#  

The patch was only applied to RELENG_4, RELENG_5 and HEAD -- not
RELENG_5_2.

However, you can extract it from cvs and apply it yourself by hand if
you aren't in a position to upgrade right now -- see:

 
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/db/btree/bt_split.c.diff?
r1=1.5&r2=1.7

(Remember that you'll have to re-apply that patch each time you
cvsup(1) your src)

Otherwise just use one of the variations on:

setenv PORTS_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash

as a workaround.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   26 The Paddocks
  Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Portupgrade problem, possible pkgdb problem?

[Matthew Seaman]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:45:46AM -0500, Mire, John wrote:
> I'm still getting this error after a cvsup+buildworld, a make fetchindex and
> I have deleted /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db and rebuilt it, what's the patch?:
> 
> test# uname -v
> FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p11 #12: Wed Oct  6 17:13:13 CDT 2004
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/TEST 
> test# cd /usr/ports
> test# make fetchindex
> Receiving INDEX-5 (5881230 bytes): 100%
> 5881230 bytes transferred in 16.9 seconds (339.01 kBps)
> test# portupgrade -R sudo
> [Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb
>  in /usr/ports ... - 11735 port entries found
> .1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.60
> 00.7000.8000/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb
> :587: [BUG] Bus Error
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]
> 
> Abort (core dumped)
> test# rm /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db
> test# portupgrade -R sudo
> [Rebuilding the pkgdb  in /var/db/pkg ... - 54 packages
> found (-0 +54) .. done]
> [Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb
>  in /usr/ports ... - 11735 port entries found
> .1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.60
> 00.7000.8000/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb
> :587: [BUG] Bus Error
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]
> 
> Abort (core dumped)
> test#  

The patch was only applied to RELENG_4, RELENG_5 and HEAD -- not
RELENG_5_2.

However, you can extract it from cvs and apply it yourself by hand if
you aren't in a position to upgrade right now -- see:


http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/db/btree/bt_split.c.diff?r1=1.5&r2=1.7

(Remember that you'll have to re-apply that patch each time you
cvsup(1) your src)

Otherwise just use one of the variations on:

setenv PORTS_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash

as a workaround.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   26 The Paddocks
  Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK


pgpRm4klv3Ptz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: Portupgrade problem, possible pkgdb problem?

[Mire, John]

I'm still getting this error after a cvsup+buildworld, a make fetchindex and
I have deleted /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db and rebuilt it, what's the patch?:

test# uname -v
FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p11 #12: Wed Oct  6 17:13:13 CDT 2004
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/TEST 
test# cd /usr/ports
test# make fetchindex
Receiving INDEX-5 (5881230 bytes): 100%
5881230 bytes transferred in 16.9 seconds (339.01 kBps)
test# portupgrade -R sudo
[Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb
 in /usr/ports ... - 11735 port entries found
.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.60
00.7000.8000/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb
:587: [BUG] Bus Error
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]

Abort (core dumped)
test# rm /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db
test# portupgrade -R sudo
[Rebuilding the pkgdb  in /var/db/pkg ... - 54 packages
found (-0 +54) .. done]
[Failed `Inappropriate file type or format'] [Updating the portsdb
 in /usr/ports ... - 11735 port entries found
.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.60
00.7000.8000/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/portsdb.rb
:587: [BUG] Bus Error
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-07-29) [i386-freebsd5]

Abort (core dumped)
test#  


--
"Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny"

John Mire: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Network Administration
318-675-5434  LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer. 



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Matthew Seaman
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 4:14 AM
> To: Matt Navarre
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Portupgrade problem, possible pkgdb problem?
> 
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 06:14:18PM -0700, Matt Navarre wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 September 2004 05:13, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> 
> > > It could be a problem with the DBDriver. You could try this:
> > > Edit /root/.cs...
> > > and add
> > > PORTS_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash
> > > PKG_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash
> 
> > Doesn't the DBDRIVER bug result in ruby dumping core? 'Cuz 
> it isn't in this 
> > case, it fails gracefully.
> 
> The core dump is seen with portsdb(1) trying to create
> /usr/ports/INDEX.db -- however, the underlying bug can affect anywhere
> that ruby uses bdb1_btree files.  pkgdb(1) occasionally going a bit
> funny is a problem that's been known about for some time; usually just
> deleting and rebuilding /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db will sort things out.
> However, I don't think anyone had ever tracked down the root cause of
> the problem.  Then the portsdb coredumping thing came along, and it
> seems an obvious conclusion that the same thing might be affecting
> both programs.
> 
> Note that a fix for the bdb1_btree problem has been in HEAD for a few
> weeks, and was MFC'd to both RELENG_4 and RELENG_5 a week or so ago.
> So an alternative fix could be cvsup+buildworld.  Unfortunately, I
> don't think the fix will be applied to any of the existing 4.x-RELEASE
> or 5.x-RELEASE branches -- it will of course be in 5.3-RELEASE when
> that comes out, and it's pretty easy to do if you want to patch things
> yourself.
>  
> > I'll go ahead and try this, but I suspect that the 
> /var/db/pkg info for 
> > gnucash or one of it's dependancies got horked up. We'll see.
> > 
> > > Then execute this in your shell also. Then do:
> > > pkgdb -u && portsdb -u && portupgrade -R gnucash
> 
> Yup.  That should ensure you get a clean install of gnucash and all of
> its dependencies.
> 
>   Cheers,
> 
>   Matthew
> 
> -- 
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   26 The Paddocks
>   Savill Way
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
> Tel: +44 1628 476614  Bucks., 
> SL7 1TH UK
> 
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: Portupgrade problem, possible pkgdb problem?

[Matthew Seaman]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 06:14:18PM -0700, Matt Navarre wrote:
> On Saturday 25 September 2004 05:13, Alex de Kruijff wrote:

> > It could be a problem with the DBDriver. You could try this:
> > Edit /root/.cs...
> > and add
> > PORTS_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash
> > PKG_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash

> Doesn't the DBDRIVER bug result in ruby dumping core? 'Cuz it isn't in this 
> case, it fails gracefully.

The core dump is seen with portsdb(1) trying to create
/usr/ports/INDEX.db -- however, the underlying bug can affect anywhere
that ruby uses bdb1_btree files.  pkgdb(1) occasionally going a bit
funny is a problem that's been known about for some time; usually just
deleting and rebuilding /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db will sort things out.
However, I don't think anyone had ever tracked down the root cause of
the problem.  Then the portsdb coredumping thing came along, and it
seems an obvious conclusion that the same thing might be affecting
both programs.

Note that a fix for the bdb1_btree problem has been in HEAD for a few
weeks, and was MFC'd to both RELENG_4 and RELENG_5 a week or so ago.
So an alternative fix could be cvsup+buildworld.  Unfortunately, I
don't think the fix will be applied to any of the existing 4.x-RELEASE
or 5.x-RELEASE branches -- it will of course be in 5.3-RELEASE when
that comes out, and it's pretty easy to do if you want to patch things
yourself.
 
> I'll go ahead and try this, but I suspect that the /var/db/pkg info for 
> gnucash or one of it's dependancies got horked up. We'll see.
> 
> > Then execute this in your shell also. Then do:
> > pkgdb -u && portsdb -u && portupgrade -R gnucash

Yup.  That should ensure you get a clean install of gnucash and all of
its dependencies.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   26 The Paddocks
  Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK


pgpVii1Bm2YMS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Portupgrade problem, possible pkgdb problem?

[Matt Navarre]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 05:13, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 04:18:47PM -0700, Matt Navarre wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 September 2004 02:35, Matt Navarre wrote:
> > > I'm trying to upgrade gnucash, but portupgrade is choking:
> > >
<*snip*>
> > >
> > > It looks like the pkgdb has something wrong with it, but pkgdb -Fu
> > > doesn't report anything that seems like it would cause portupgrade to
> > > bomb. There's a duplicate origin for cdrtools, but that doesn't seem to
> > > pertain.
> > >
> > > Should I move /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db out of the way and regenerate it?
> > > Will pkgdb -u recreate pkgdb.db?
> >
> > Ok, that didn't work. I regenerated pkgdb.db using pkgdb -u and got the
> > same problem. Odd thing is that so far gnucash is the only installed
> > package that generates this error. I suppose I can pkg_delete it and try
> > reinstalling.
>
> It could be a problem with the DBDriver. You could try this:
> Edit /root/.cs...
> and add
> PORTS_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash
> PKG_DBDRIVER=bdb1_hash
Doesn't the DBDRIVER bug result in ruby dumping core? 'Cuz it isn't in this 
case, it fails gracefully.

I'll go ahead and try this, but I suspect that the /var/db/pkg info for 
gnucash or one of it's dependancies got horked up. We'll see.

> Then execute this in your shell also. Then do:
> pkgdb -u && portsdb -u && portupgrade -R gnucash

-- 
"We all enter this world in the same way: naked, screaming,
 and soaked in blood. But if you live your life right, that kind
 of thing doesn't have to stop there." -- Dana Gould
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"