Date: 08 Sep 2002 17:33:00 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> To: Pat Lashley <patl+freebsd@volant.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CONCLUSION] What to do about Mozilla Message-ID: <1031520780.66333.2.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <191405408.1031517571@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> References: <1031382538.46865.1.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <3703892704.1031440015@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> <1031465323.644.13.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> <4150422704.1031478579@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> <1031511512.60099.6.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <191405408.1031517571@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-f1Q5/3Z3Cz1FNKhCgCv1 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 16:39, Pat Lashley wrote: > --On Sunday, September 08, 2002 02:58:32 PM -0400 Joe Marcus Clarke=20 > <marcus@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > > On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 05:49, Pat Lashley wrote: > >> --On Sunday, September 08, 2002 02:08:38 AM -0400 Joe Marcus Clarke > >> <marcus@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> > >> > ... > >> > This problem should be fixed now if you make sure the origin pointed= to > >> > in your +CONTENTS file is correct. Both pkg_version and portupgrade > >> > report no problems on my mozilla laptop, or my mozilla-devel desktop= . > >> > >> I hand edited the +CONTENTS files, but then after a cvsup and index > >> rebuild, portversion showed my 1.1 mozilla ports as being downrev of t= he > >> 1.0_2,1 ports. > >> And when I upgraded the XFree86 ports to 4.2.0 the recursive update > >> downgraded > >> my mozilla ports back to 1.0_2,1. > >> > >> I had written a section outlining how I was only seeing one copy of th= e > >> mozilla ports in the INDEX and what I thought the problem was; but it > >> turns out that somehow my INDEX.db was noticably newer than the INDEX > >> itself. I've re-cvsupp'd and re-built the indexes and now I see both. > >> So I'll retract my claim that the split is unfinished. > >> > >> > >> > >> But now I've got the old versions installed; and don't see any clean w= ay > >> to upgrade to the new ones. (I do not consider manual pkg_deinstall a= nd > >> portinstall to be clean.) I've tweaked the origin in the +CONTENTS > >> files; but that doesn't seem to make any difference at this point. (A= nd > >> is, I suspect, actually counter-productive.) I have a feeling that no > >> matter what I do, I'll wind up with both versions installed... > > > > Can you explain the "old" and "new" versions. Are you referring to > > mozilla-embedded-devel and mozilla-headers-devel If so, I committed a > > fix yesterday to correct their split. That may be what you were seeing > > previously. >=20 > I meant the 1.0 versions vs the 1.1 versions. I have all three ports > (mozilla, -headers, and -embedded) installed. I had updated them to > the 1.1 versions when that change was committed. When you posted that > you were backing that out, I avoided further updates until the dust had > settled a bit and the -devel versions were available. Then I added > '-devel' to the origins of the installed ports. Even then, I did not > try to directly update the mozilla ports; they were caught in a -recursiv= e > on the XFree86 ports. >=20 > The unexpected downgrade was probably caused by whatever went silently > wrong with the index updates after the cvsup. (There is a small but > non-zero probability that I failed to run the 'portsdb --updateindex > --update') This problem should be fixed now. That is, mozilla-*-devel should point to the correct master dir (i.e. mozilla-devel), and updates for them should work as expected. >=20 > The oldest files in any of /var/db/pkg/mozilla-* are timestamped Sept > 5 5:51 (Pacific time). The portsupgrade would have been started right > after the cvsup and (probable) index rebuild. >=20 > There are no +REQUIRED_BY files in the -headers or -embedded dirs; so > manual de-install and re-install should work fine for them. And, rather > surprisingly, the only entry for mozilla itself is the flashplugin, which > should probably be re-built anyway. >=20 > Am I correct in believing that the mozilla and mozilla-headers installs > should be kept in sync; but need not match mozilla-embedded ? (E.g., > Install mozilla-1.1, mozilla-headers-1.1, mozilla-embedded-1.0; but not > mozilla-1.1, mozilla-headers-1.0, mozilla-embedded-1.0.) Your headers should match the API you care about. If you want to build dependent applications on mozilla-1.1, you will need mozilla-headers-devel. If you want those dependent apps to use the embedded mozilla-1.1 API, then also have mozilla-embedded-devel installed. If, however, you want to use mozilla-1.1 as your primary browser, but have mozilla-embedded-1.0 around for Galeon, you will want mozilla-embedded and mozilla-headers. If all you want to do is have a browser, then you don't need -headers at all. Joe >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -Pat --=20 Joe Marcus Clarke FreeBSD GNOME Team :: marcus@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome --=-f1Q5/3Z3Cz1FNKhCgCv1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA9e8ILb2iPiv4Uz4cRAh6qAKCNa1aFUB1qgXNA4mohj4N7eE9wNACgrL3w XypcrGG7/rpRzkDY3m2uIUM= =RhW6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-f1Q5/3Z3Cz1FNKhCgCv1-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1031520780.66333.2.camel>