Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:29:52 -0500 From: Josh Tolbert <hemi@puresimplicity.net> To: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade -o strangeness... Message-ID: <20070612142952.GA37242@just.puresimplicity.net> In-Reply-To: <466E7426.3060905@dial.pipex.com> References: <20070607204129.GA45269@just.puresimplicity.net> <466937C6.1010306@dial.pipex.com> <20070612034110.GA95034@just.puresimplicity.net> <466E7426.3060905@dial.pipex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
> It doesn't look like what I was suggesting is the issue so it's all
> moot, but the example I can see:
>
> sudo portupgrade -fo devel/bison2 bison
>
> is different from what I was suggesting:
>
> sudo portupgrade -f -o devel/bison2 bison
>
> which deliberately split -f and -o. Your original version could reasonably
> be expected to work, but I have seen software (even written some :-)) which
> does not correctly parse flags when they are combined ("-fo") especially
> when one of them also takes an argument. That's not what's happening here,
> but my suggestion was always a shot in the dark.
>
> >Anyway, a PR has been filed and the response is, "it's a feature." I'm not
> >sure how it's a feature, but it is. The example I was given looks like
> >this:
> >
> >$ pkg_version -t 2.3_1 1.75_2,1
> ><
> >
> >I'm guessing it's just doing some odd string comparison instead of breaking
> >the version number apart and handling it with weight on the major version
> >number, etc.
> >
> >
> I find it bizarre too, since I don't even understand *why* the version
> numbers matter in that command line. You've said "upgrade using
> devel/bison2" as the origin and it's upgrading using "devel/bison". I
> could understand the version number bizarre-matching affecting *whether*
> portupgrade chooses to upgrade (so requiring -f) but not that it fails
> to honour the origin you've given.
>
> The pkg_version comparison is surely just wrong. The version numbers
> look correct to me. Interestingly, if you drop the ,1 from the second
> version, the answer is correct (on 5.4 anyway).
>
> $ pkg_version -t 2.3_1 1.75_2
> >
>
> Or add a comma to the first
>
> $ pkg_version -t 2.3_1,1 1.75_2,1
> >
>
>
> which looks like a bug to me, but maybe there's something non-standard
> about that version number. Blowed if I can see what; there are plenty
> of examples like it in my installed packages.
>
> There's definitely a bug in something.
>
> Software, bah.
>
> --Alex
>
> PS Presumably deinstalling bison and installing bison2 worked OK as a
> workaround?
I didn't try separate options for -f and -o. I've always just ran
single-letter options together and never had any issues. I'd be surprised if
that were the problem.
I ended up going back to portupgrade from portupgrade-devel and everything
seemed to work fine.
Thanks,
Josh
--
Josh Tolbert
hemi@puresimplicity.net || http://www.puresimplicity.net/~hemi/
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor
do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger
is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either
a daring adventure, or nothing.
-- Helen Keller
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070612142952.GA37242>