Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:00:09 -0800 From: Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> To: Brett Taylor <brett@peloton.runet.edu> Cc: "Havener, Kevin" <Kevin.Havener@afccc.af.mil>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.4, Lyx-1.0.4, teTeX-1.0.6, packages and ports Message-ID: <20000127110009.A58910@wopr.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001271038340.20641-100000@peloton.runet.edu>; from brett@peloton.runet.edu on Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:45:12AM -0500 References: <E55BC5FC7AA9D211A00F00104B07D7DB48FC63@thor.afccc.af.mil> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001271038340.20641-100000@peloton.runet.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:45:12AM -0500, Brett Taylor wrote: > > Question 1: What is the right answer if make asks me which "file to > > patch: "? Shouldn't make know (at least have a default answer for > > this? > > This is a sign that your ports tree is out of sync w/ the distfile of the > source you grabbed. I'm surprised that the checksums passed actually, > although authors do occasionally change things wo/ bumping the version > number. The right answer is "update your ports tree" w/ CVSup. Or at > least go down the particular port tree for the software you want to > install (and all of its dependencies). Indeed, if you're asked that question, something is wrong. In addition to what Brett said, I think this problem can arise in certain cases if you have an old "work" directory, have updated your Ports Collection, and are trying to build the port again. So I would add that you should do a "make clean" in the port directory to the advice. -- Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> * Stay close to the Vorlon. http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000127110009.A58910>