From owner-freebsd-perl@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 23 08:20:14 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: perl@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0134D1065670 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:20:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BAE8FC16 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:20:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4N8KDhU053431 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:20:13 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q4N8KDux053430; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:20:13 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:20:13 GMT Message-Id: <201205230820.q4N8KDux053430@freefall.freebsd.org> To: perl@FreeBSD.org From: pmn@bakarika.net Cc: Subject: Re: ports/168248: textproc/p5-XML-SAX dependency loop when updating from 0.96 to 0.99 X-BeenThere: freebsd-perl@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pmn@bakarika.net List-Id: maintainer of a number of perl-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:20:14 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/168248; it has been noted by GNATS. From: pmn@bakarika.net To: Andrej Zverev Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/168248: textproc/p5-XML-SAX dependency loop when updating from 0.96 to 0.99 Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:14:30 +0200 Quoting Andrej Zverev : > Hello, Hello. > Note about this issue exist ports/UPDATING. Does not it helped you? > version 0.99. Since X-S-B now installs some files formerly > installed by X-S > the package for X-S must be deinstalled before updating X-S. Yes, as I wrote in the bug report, it helped me. However, I didn't expect the bug: UPDATING says some files are overwritten (which means I can break my system if I don't do as required), not that installation will err (which seems unrelated to the dependency loop problem I mentioned). Therefore, I thought that I had found a bug unrelated to UPDATING's comment. But since, in the end, following UPDATING solves the issue, I wasn't sure whether the bug was valid or not. Feel free to close it. Cheers, P! -- This is not a signature.