From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 20 15:14:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E52510656E5 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:14:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nealhogan@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD7B8FC0A for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:14:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nealhogan@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l9so1117153rvb.43 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:14:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gm1I7PPvOokBaMr4q9XW++E9pIQGuZ87zuZ5qUp8eDM=; b=uBtnNryeDF94OiIukI2w+2vLTQZfu7BzbTUNRZmx2Hvt4dQjHpQpTPMAOhaqg+JTv8 q8iU0yi/Cr0x8XNiUPNIzF/8bxEvn1AhH8AW2/hFEjcqF4Hrv7BKWHafFwqa3tEYrIdk TjwT0DF3YDoem/edPG3eYFMTmWVr6EvIOYWbw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=fEL76vdliF2O4HB2O9x9neJ2gnNAyCM6ErGsTjNs5jrug+cXZCeWPiIOVFt/EurKZW dcrhaNWMv0AnVBvM0FaToJkLeRk3/twwSxUQ0JOyMXsda6uprARwodY/tHF2Bneii5KD toXxQYnEQVg9XQiFfksCNe6mTxLJTMqFQQK5I= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.177.1 with SMTP id z1mr2525196wae.68.1237562072700; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:14:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090319211530.GA27605@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> References: <20090319211530.GA27605@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:14:32 -0500 Message-ID: From: Neal Hogan To: Frank Shute , Neal Hogan , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Ryan Flannery Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: Re: portupdate xorg-server X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:14:34 -0000 On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Frank Shute wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 03:21:05PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > > > > The last couple of days I've been running portupgrade -av and am to the > > point where I'd like to move onto something else, but there is one > package > > that won't upgrade . . . xorg-server. As you can see below, it claims > that > > there is a missing header and there are a fair amount of reported errors. > > I'm not the best at deciphering the stuff below. > > > > I've tried make deinstalling/reinstalling and individually portupgrading > it > > to no avail. > > > > suggestions? > > > > glxdriswrast.c:39:39: error: GL/internal/dri_interface.h: No such file or > > directory > > $ pkg_info -W /usr/local/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h > /usr/local/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h was installed by package > xf86driproto-2.0.3 I wish to not only that Frank for his patience and subtle hand-holding, but also address the rest of the list. First, concerning the issue Mr. Shute responded to . . . I reinstalled xf86driproto, which installed the dri_interface.h, which allowed me to pkg_add xorg-server. However, it was the older version of xorg-server. So, I ran portupgrade on it and it, again, claims that there is no dri_interface.h. According to pkg_version, all xorg and xf86 ports are up-to-date, except xorg-server of which there is a newer version. That said, I was hoping that you can help me understand the portupgrade process b/c it can be a bit frustrating when it runs for a LONG time only to have upgrades fail. Please don't take my tone to be anything other than one coming from a sense of curiosity. I don't mean to suggest anything about the fBSD ports system. Perhaps my experience is the result of my own oversight. Just to be clear, here are the steps I took: 1) #portsnap fetch 2) #portsnap extract 3) #portsnap update 4) #pkgdb -u 5) #pkgdb -F 6) #portupgrade -av As I noted in another post, some ports fail to upgrade when using portupgrade -a, no matter how many times it is run. However, they (those that fail), along with their dependencies, do upgrade when portupgraded individually (or de/reinstalled). I thought the purpose of having a ports system, where you install the ports tree and use portupgrade, was to make the install/upgrade easy and rather painless, such that all ports and their dependencies are "taken care of." As I write this I am running portupgrade individually, on those ports that failed to upgrade with -a option, but have (so far) succeeded in upgrading individually. I am simply looking at the output of pkg_version to find those that are not up-to-date. I could see if ports failed to upgrade or were ignored due to there being no diff between what's installed and that which is in the updated tree. Can someone shed some light on this? Thanks a lot for taking the time. -Neal > > HTH. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Frank > > > Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html > > -- www.nealhogan.net www.lambdaserver.com