From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 30 15:47:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0931316A4F9 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 15:47:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DC1543D79 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 15:47:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 May 2006 15:47:51 -0000 Received: from p54A7F7D0.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.12]) [84.167.247.208] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 30 May 2006 17:47:51 +0200 X-Authenticated: #5465401 Message-ID: <447C691A.1040409@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:47:38 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" Organization: Lords of Nightmare User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060423) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Evenson References: <447AE23F.9080809@gmx.at> <20060529205032.GA91562@xor.obsecurity.org> <447C655B.9040709@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: <447C655B.9040709@gmx.at> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: anrays@gmail.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: make: Max recursion level (500) exceeded.: Resource temporarily unavailable X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:47:57 -0000 Mark Evenson wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> [...] >>> >>> Let me know how I can give more information to help debug this. >>> >> >> Well, what else do you have set, or what were you trying to make? >> >> Kris >> > > Unfortunately I cannot reproduce the error. > > It occurred yesterday in the course of a "portupgrade -ras" for my local > workstation, which I don't have a log of. > > In any event the problem seems to have "fixed itself" (maybe it was > just in a couple of ports that got upgraded yesterday?). > > Sorry for the false alarm. > I would guess it's because of running -a with -r. Since -a walks the ports tree in the right order neither -r nor -R are necessary. I do not know the portupgrade source, but my guess is that -r added unnecessary dependency checks for every single port on your system.