From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 29 23:58:53 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4DA16A402 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:58:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from spork@bway.net) Received: from xena.bway.net (xena.bway.net [216.220.96.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D323813C480 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:58:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from spork@bway.net) Received: (qmail 95840 invoked by uid 0); 29 Mar 2007 23:32:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO white.nat.fasttrackmonkey.com) (216.220.116.154) by smtp.bway.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 29 Mar 2007 23:32:12 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:32:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Sprickman X-X-Sender: spork@white.nat.fasttrackmonkey.com To: Garrett Cooper In-Reply-To: <4600CB16.1010509@u.washington.edu> Message-ID: References: <4600CB16.1010509@u.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports management in 4.11 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: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:58:53 -0000 On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Charles Sprickman wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I understand 4.11 is dead, but I've still got about 20 odd boxes to take >> care of for the next few months until we can figure out what breaks in 6.x >> for us. >> >> I saw that it's recommended to use the "RELEASE_4_EOL" tag when updating >> the ports tree to make sure that we have a stable ports tree that should >> (mostly) build on 4.11. No problems there, we can deal with freezing >> everything at the date that tag came out... >> >> However, we do make extensive use of portupgrade and the version tagged >> there is known to be buggy. So I'd like to keep my current version of >> portupgrade (2.2.6_2.2) installed. Should this work? >> >> Running "pkgdb -F" to fix up deps gives me this: >> >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1765:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1766:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1767:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1768:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> >> I'm guessing something here is not in sync or my cvsup "downgrade" to the >> EOL tag perhaps didn't remove everything. >> >> portupgrade also still thinks that tools that came from >> /usr/port/ports-mgmt still live in that directory rather than in >> /usr/ports/sysutils (as they do with the EOL tag): >> >> toolbox[/usr/ports]# pkgdb -F >> cd: can't cd to /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/portupgrade >> ---> Checking the package registry database >> Stale origin: 'ports-mgmt/pkg_install': perhaps moved or obsoleted. >> [/usr/ports/INDEX.db: unexpected file type or format -- Invalid argument] >> [Updating the portsdb in /usr/ports ... - 15969 port >> entries found /usr/ports/INDEX.db: unexpected file type or format -- >> Invalid argument: Cannot update the portsdb! (/usr/ports/INDEX.db)] >> database file error >> [Updating the portsdb in /usr/ports ... - 15969 port >> entries found >> .........1000.........2000.........3000.........4000.........5000.........6000.........7000.........8000.........9000.........10000.........11000.........12000.........13000.........14000.........15000......... >> ..... done] >> Skip this for now? [yes] >> >> What do I need to get in order to have this all work relatively smoothly >> until we can get everything upgraded to 6.x? >> >> Sadly(?), most of the port management tools have "just worked" for me, so >> I've never really gone looking under the hood that much. >> >> Any advice is appreciated... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Charles > > Newer version of portupgrade / pkgdb should have fixed this IIRC. Look into > the archives a few days and you'll find the thread. I'm still messing around with this, but to reiterate, while my ports tree is back to the EOL tag, I am using the latest/greatest portupgrade/pkgdb. In fact, that's basically necessary since the portupgrade in the EOL branch is broken. Thanks, Charles > -Garrett >