Thanks, Manish. Very non-standard syntax, that.
So evidently when pkg claims that the repositories are current,
as it did, it may be, in effect, lying.
Which suggests that *it* should be doing the forced update as
step 3 in its attempt to get good bits.
[sigh]
[Default] On Mon, 28 Aug 2017
On 08/28/17 16:58, scratch65...@att.net wrote:
> [Default] On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 03:08:05 +0200, Jan Beich
> wrote:
>
>> Try running: pkg update -f
>
> Are you thinking of something else, perhaps? The man page
> doesn't show an -f switch, and pkg thinks the repositories were
> already current,
[Default] On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 03:08:05 +0200, Jan Beich
wrote:
>Try running: pkg update -f
Are you thinking of something else, perhaps? The man page
doesn't show an -f switch, and pkg thinks the repositories were
already current, which is why (I suppose) it tried a remote
fetch. What am I miss
writes:
> 17:22:34 Sun, 27 Aug
> [momcat:root]~> pkg install gtkmm30
>
> Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue...
> FreeBSD repository is up to date.
> All repositories are up to date.
> The following 7 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked):
>
> New packages to be INSTALLED:
> gtkmm30:
17:22:34 Sun, 27 Aug
[momcat:root]~> pkg install gtkmm30
Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue...
FreeBSD repository is up to date.
All repositories are up to date.
The following 7 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked):
New packages to be INSTALLED:
gtkmm30: 3.22.0
pangomm: 2