From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 15 00:12:14 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606A0DAA for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:12:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sdb@ssr.com) Received: from mailhost.ssr.com (mailhost.ssr.com [199.4.235.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1437421EA for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:12:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 13359 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2013 01:04:20 -0000 Received: from pool-71-167-229-74.nycmny.east.verizon.net (HELO irelay.ssr.com) (sdb@71.167.229.74) by 199.4.235.5 with SMTP; 15 Oct 2013 01:04:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 56017 invoked by uid 103); 14 Oct 2013 23:35:39 -0000 Date: 14 Oct 2013 23:35:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20131014233539.56016.qmail@irelay.ssr.com> From: Scott Ballantyne To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-reply-to: (message from Warren Block on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:31:56 -0600 (MDT)) Subject: Re: Advice sought on Portmaster -Faf and deleted ports References: <20131013200236.7874.qmail@irelay.ssr.com> <20131014174833.58154.qmail@irelay.ssr.com> X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:12:14 -0000 On Mon, 14 oct 2013, Warren Block wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Scott Ballantyne wrote: > > >> > >> What errors, exactly? > > > > Well, for example: > > > > portmaster -Faf > > it starts to fetch a bunch of files > > it finds a port which has been deleted, such as > > linux-base-fc4 > > and it says, "linux-base-fc4" has been deleted. > > terminating > > terminating > > terminating > > etc. > > That's correct. linux_base-fc4 is long gone (years), replaced by > linux_base-f10. portmaster sees no way to upgrade that port, so > evidently it quits. I understand why portmaster quits that port. It does seem like a bit of over-kill to quit updating ALL ports because one is long gone. Seems like it could do the others. > If you have ports that far out of date, the upgrade process is going to > be long. Ports where the system does not know the replacement will have > to be handled manually. Actually, the last time I updated my ports was when I installed 9.0, and I used the portmaster 'nuke all ports' method I was trying to day. Since then, several dozen ports of been 'deleted' or 'renamed', not just the linux_base-fc4. Seems in the case of ports which have been renamed or replaced, this could in fact be simply automated in most cases. Best, Scott -- sdb@ssr.com