Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:33:34 +0100 From: Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> To: Joel Hatton <freebsd-stable@auscert.org.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xorg-clients conflicts with xterm (patch) Message-ID: <200511230133.35763.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> In-Reply-To: <200511230011.jAN0BmMe053466@app.auscert.org.au> References: <200511230011.jAN0BmMe053466@app.auscert.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 23 of November 2005 01:11, Joel Hatton wrote: > > Joel Hatton wrote: > > > What was the rationale behind changing this behaviour for 206_1? > > > > That xterm should install as xterm and not xterm-static. > > This is certainly sensible, however it appears that the onus has now been > put on the maintainer of xorg-clients to change its installation process > to accommodate xterm. It has been accommodated. > This hasn't happened yet (after cvsup this morning), > which means that xterm remains incompatible with the current xorg-clients > version and thus will fail during every portupgrade -a until then, unless > I make xterm a held package. > > According to UPDATING, upgrading "xorg-clients to 6.8.2_1 or newer" is ok, > but this is not the case: > > # pkg_info -I xorg-clients\* > xorg-clients-6.8.2_1 X client programs and related files from X.Org > > # portupgrade -p xterm > > ... (building) > > ---> Installing the new version via the port > ===> Installing for xterm-206_1 > > ===> xterm-206_1 conflicts with installed package(s): > xorg-clients-6.8.2 > > They install files into the same place. > Please remove them first with pkg_delete(1). Interesting. This is how it goes here: # pkg_info -I xorg-clients\* xorg-clients-6.8.2_1 X client programs and related files from X.Org # portupgrade -fp xterm ... ===> Building for xterm-206_1 ... (build) ... ===> Installing for xterm-206_1 ... (install) ... ===> Registering installation for xterm-206_1 ... Can you try without portupgrade (cd /usr/ports/x11/xterm && make install). > Couldn't this transition have been better managed? Possibly. Do you have a suggestion so it can be used in similar future situations? Dejan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200511230133.35763.dejan.lesjak>