Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:01:41 -0800 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Trouble with upgrading ports... Message-ID: <200502202101.42351.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <42196AF5.9030302@computer.org> References: <42196AF5.9030302@computer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 20 February 2005 09:00 pm, Eric Schuele wrote: > Hello, > > I am having difficulty upgrading ports on all my freebsd 5.3-stable > machines. They all have been cvsup'd and built within the last few > days. > > But for the last week, maybe two... something strange has been (not) > happening. Portversion no longer correctly reports what ports need > updating. But if I do a 'portupgrade -arR', the appropriate things > get upgraded.... and then later it says they 'succeed' the port!?! > It feels like the INDEX is not getting update at all, or something. > > I have a script (attached) to update my system sources. I then > portupgrade, or buildworld whenever I feel like it. It has ben > working fine for quite sometime. Maybe the script is bad and I was > bound to mess my machines up. Not sure. > > Either way... If I delete my INDEX and then 'make fetchindex'... > things don't resolve themselves. I'm really not sure where the > problem is. I was hoping someone could point me in the right > direction. Below is an example of the behavior I am seeing. This is > happening on three machines (all using the same scripts... and me). > > fangorn# cd /usr/ports > fangorn# rm INDEX-5 > fangorn# rm INDEX.db > fangorn# make fetchindex > INDEX-5.bz2 100% of 614 kB 366 > kBps fangorn# portsdb -u > [Updating the portsdb <format:bdb1_btree> in /usr/ports ... - 12376 > port entries found > .........1000.........2000.........3000.........4000.........5000.... >.....6000.........7000.........8000.........9000.........10000........ >.11000.........12000... ..... done] > fangorn# portversion -v -L "=" > ImageMagick-6.1.9.4 > succeeds port (port has 6.1.9.2) > bitstream-vera-1.10_1 > succeeds port (port has 1.10) > docbook-xsl-1.68.1 > succeeds port (port has 1.68.0) > dri-6.2.1,2 > succeeds port (port has 6.2_2,2) > emacs-21.3_4 > succeeds port (port has 21.3_3) > gnutls-1.0.24_1 > succeeds port (port has 1.0.24) > libfpx-1.2.0.11 > succeeds port (port has 1.2.0.9_1) > fangorn# portupgrade -narR > ---> Session started at: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:25:46 -0600 > ** No need to upgrade 'dagrab-0.3.5_1' (>= dagrab-0.3.5_1). (specify > -f to force) > <snip> > ** No need to upgrade 'gkrellm-2.2.4_1' (>= gkrellm-2.2.4_1). > (specify -f to force) > ---> Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed) > - audio/dagrab (dagrab-0.3.5_1) > - textproc/xmlcatmgr (xmlcatmgr-2.2) > <snip> > - graphics/imlib2 (imlib2-1.1.2_1) > + devel/libast (libast-0.5_1) <--- This DOES need upgrade > - textproc/jade (jade-1.2.1_9) > - www/firefox (firefox-1.0_7,1) > - x11-wm/fluxconf (fluxconf-0.9.7_1) > - sysutils/gkrellm2 (gkrellm-2.2.4_1) > ---> Packages processed: 1 done, 168 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed > ---> Session ended at: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:26:18 -0600 (consumed > 00:00:32) fangorn# exit > > Everything that portversion reports as suceeding the ports, DOES. > But it shouldn't since the script updates the ports and THEN upgrades > those installed. Portupgrade correctly realizes that devel/libast > requires an upgrade... portversion does not. > > I've looked in the past posts, handbook, man pages, UPDATING, various > READMEs.... but really not sure what I'm looking for at this point. > > Thanks in advance. sysutils/portmanager can upgrade those ports and does not need the INDEX file to do so. -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502202101.42351.ringworm01>