From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 21 21:37:16 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643C210656C4; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:37:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from mailgw.es.net (mail4.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:6000:6::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157EA8FC18; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:37:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:910::29]) by mailgw.es.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8LLb83c026881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:37:09 -0700 Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 9DF3C1CC39; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:37:07 -0700 (PDT) To: Doug Barton In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:25:08 PDT." <4AB7EF34.9010400@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:37:07 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20090921213707.9DF3C1CC39@ptavv.es.net> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2009-09-21_11:2009-09-17, 2009-09-21, 2009-09-21 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-0909210121 Cc: barbara , freebsd-current Subject: Re: Still can't seem to get sysutils/hal compile on current. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:37:16 -0000 > Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:25:08 -0700 > From: Doug Barton > > Kevin Oberman wrote: > > This REALLY needs to be in UPDATING, right up front. I hit it (but > > figured it out fairly quickly). Lots of folks are going to hit it. It > > needs to be down near the end in the update step-by-step section and > > also to be very prominent in the release notes. Otherwise this will > > become the main FAQ for a long time to come. (It might still be.) > > This btw is one of the reasons we tell people to remove all their > ports to do major version upgrades, although your point about updating > UPDATING is well taken. Hopefully someone with some actual knowledge > of the topic will take that on. While your recommendation of removing all ports and re-installing is a good one, the actual recommendation made was to re-install all ports and that is inadequate for this one as both portmaster and portupdate will not install libusb and tell you that it is now in the base system, but will then try to re-build everything with the header files and the sharable still in place. Kaboom! When you have several hundred ports installed (not uncommon for a desktop system), the odds of catching the warning about libusb is not too good. I think that the first step to updating ports when upgrading the OS from 7.x to 8.0 should be to explicitly: 'pkg_deinstall libusb' and then 'portupgrade -af' or 'portmaster -af'. (I still have not had time to play with portmaster, so that command may not be right.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751