Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:12:45 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: x11@freebsd.org, Andy Fawcett <andy@athame.co.uk>, kde@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] qt upgrade strangeness Message-ID: <20070417151245.GC1004@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200704171633.59007.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <200704051229.27994.lists@jnielsen.net> <00d201c78052$6b2af740$0d0aa8c0@dorfl> <200704171601.57014.lofi@freebsd.org> <200704171633.59007.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--LwW0XdcUbUexiWVK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:33:55PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > I dimly remember seeing that before - I don't think Qt/qmake can actual= ly > > handle a PREFIX-move cleanly and once the prefix has changed, it has to= be > > deinstalled *before* rebuilding it, or else this will happen. >=20 > Since I understand there will be an update script for the upcoming X.org= =20 > upheaval, this issue would be a prime candidate for handling it in such a= =20 > script. flz, lesi, what do you think? So far this is the only port that is claimed to require special treatment, the upgrade script isn't doing major surgery on other ports. I'd like to find a workaround that doesn't require it. It would be great if you could get involved in testing the upgrade yourself, we really need people like yourself to help test this kind of corner case. Kris --LwW0XdcUbUexiWVK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGJOPtWry0BWjoQKURAr6eAKCPeDbcbT3w6hIUSYvhtyP1dHoKEACg9Luk iyVHvSorIs2Z5nw8tqsCrMI= =9qSb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LwW0XdcUbUexiWVK--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070417151245.GC1004>