Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:15:17 -0700 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Build problem - help wanted Message-ID: <20974.1319253317@tristatelogic.com> In-Reply-To: <4EA22C60.8080207@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <4EA22C60.8080207@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> I am just simply trying to bring up a fresh new 8.2-RELEASE system and trying >> to get a bunch of ports I need to have installed on it installed. >> >> To do this, I have run either portinstall or portupgrade on something like >> 30-40 different ports of things I need. > >You left out portmaster. :) But seriously, you didn't mention 'update >your ports tree' in that list of things to do. Well, so this time _I_ must plead guilty of ass-uming. I assumed that people would implicitly understand that I wouldn't be asking the kind of question I was asking unless I had just recent done a "portsnap fetch extract", which in fact I did do within 18 hours prior to posting about the gtk build failure. In short, yes, my ports tree was and is reasonably up-to-date. >It's far more likely that >a stale ports tree would have caused this problem than the specific tool >you used to do your installation. In general, yes. But in this specific case, no. >> ... >> It would seem that one of those, or perhaps something I installed from pre- >> built packages off the distribution CD stealthily installed a stale and >> unusable version of this gobject-introspection thing when I wasn't looking.. > >Yeah, that could do it too. I am glad we agree, >> In short, it is all well and good for you to admonish me > >You used the word "admonish" in your message several times, as if you >believe I'm somehow telling you that you did something wrong. You said something like "Make sure all of you ports are up to date", and it did sound a bit dismissive... sort of like something that somebody would say to a newbie to make him just go away quitely with his head down. I may be dumb. I may often make mistakes. But I'm not a newbie. >I assure >you that's not the case. I was simply trying to help you understand how >to improve the situation for the future. Well, then I'm sorry if _I_ seemed to be flying off. But then again, as I said, even taken as something well-meaning, your advice was not altogether helpful due to its circular nature. I mean in effect the the essence of your final bit of advice seemed to be ``Keep all of your ports up to date at all times and then you won't ever have any build problems while attempting to keep your ports up to date.'' I assume that by now you have grasped the circularity. >I snipped the rest of your message since it's more of the same. I >specifically said that I wasn't disagreeing with you on the specifics, >you could very well be right. That said, tools like portupgrade or >portmaster will help you make sure that the lower-level dependencies are >up to date before building the things that depend on them. Yes, they will, at least in those cases where the port maintainer has properly listed _all_ of the actual dependencies (which seems not to be the case, at present, for gtk). >You might consider using one of them. I _was_ in fact using portinstall at the time the build failure I first wrote about occured. As I understand it, portinstall performs all of the same auto- matic forced pre-builds of dependences as portupgrade does. Are you asserting that that is NOT the case?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20974.1319253317>