Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:26:00 +0000 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: "Luchesar V. ILIEV" <luchesar.iliev@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade -f advice please Message-ID: <201101011526.00988.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <4D1F41F1.9030500@gmail.com> References: <201101011209.17387.david@vizion2000.net> <201101011442.14507.david@vizion2000.net> <4D1F41F1.9030500@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 01/01/11 16:42, David Southwell wrote: > >> David Southwell writes: > >>> A bit puzzled > >>> =20 > >>> I have a problem with apache22 loading and decided before doing > >>> anything else that I would upgrade apache22 recursively to > >>> rebuild all ports upon which it depened and which depend upon > >>> apache. > >>> =20 > >>> The (to me) logical command was: > >>> =20 > >>> dns1# portupgrade -frR apache22 > >>> =20 > >>> Which generated the following: > >>> [Exclude up-to-date packages done] > >>> =20 > >>> Man portupgrade shows: > >>> -f > >>> =20 > >>> --force Force the upgrade of a package even if it > >>> is to be > >>> =20 > >>> a downgrade or just a reinstall of the > >>> same ver- sion, or the port is held by > >>> user using the HOLD_PKGS variable in > >>> pkgtools.conf. > >>> =20 > >>> I do not want to exclude packages that appear to be > >>> up-to-date. Where is this limitation on force set? > >> =09 > >> Assuming the reoirt if generated output is verbatim, I beleive > >>=20 > >> this is behaving as you desire. Usually the "Excluding up-to-date > >> packages" line includes what I believe is one dot per package so > >> excluded. > >>=20 > >> I would argue a better notification would be something like: > >> =09 > >> 'R' and 'f' options specifed - skipping up-to-date dependency checks. > >> =09 > >> Robert Huff > >=20 > > No I am wanting to force an upgrade to all packages irrespective as to > > whether they are up to date. > >=20 > > What is happening is that no packages are being upgraded! > >=20 > > The only response I am getting is for portupgrade to skip the upgrade of > > all packages on the grounds they are "up to date". > >=20 > > man portupgrade says -f forces the upgrade of the packages EVEN IF it is > > a reinstall of the same version. I want all the nominated ports and all > > the ports affected by -rR to be forced to upgrade. >=20 > I just checked the command on my system (I often use -f, but not that > often together with both -r and -R), and it works as expected. Could you > please tell what is your FreeBSD version, is the ports tree up-to-date > and what's your portupgrade version? >=20 > Cheers, > Luchesar >=20 > P.S. The "Exclude up-to-date packages" is still done, yet portupgrade > continues regardless of its results when -f is specified. Sorry I do not understand what you mean by works as expected! What I am=20 expecting is all affected ports to be recompiled. =46reebsd: 7.2-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE-p3 #0: Thu Aug 20 12:54:34 BST 2009=20 portupgrade-2.4.8_1,2 Ports tree up-to-date What console output do you get when all your ports are uptodate and you giv= e=20 the command for a port which has upward and downward dependcies and you giv= e=20 the command: # portupgrade -frR [category]/[port] =46rom this command the only console out I get is: [Exclude up-to-date packages done] Which seems to indicate that no packages are recompiled! That is NOT what I expect. David Photographic Artist Permanent Installations & Design Creative Imagery and Advanced Digital Techniques High Dynamic Range Photography & Official Portraiture Combined darkroom & digital creations & Systems Adminstrator for the vizion2000.net network
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201101011526.00988.david>