Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:29:46 -0600
From:      Gary Aitken <freebsd@dreamchaser.org>
To:        RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd@edvax.de
Subject:   Re: portsnap belated complaint?
Message-ID:  <3bee3767-b098-c278-ca67-581c7c3a87ac@dreamchaser.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200821193243.622b63e5@gumby.homeunix.com>
References:  <332bdd11-40f3-b5af-7683-aca6494abe6e@dreamchaser.org> <20200821193243.622b63e5@gumby.homeunix.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 8/21/20 12:11 PM, Polytropon wrote:
>> ...
>> Fetching 4 metadata patches... done.
>> Applying metadata patches... done.
>> Fetching 0 metadata files... done.
>> Fetching 22 patches.
>> (22/22) 100.00%  done.
>> done.
>> Applying patches...
>> done.
>> Fetching 2 new ports or files... done.
>> /usr/ports was not created by portsnap.
>> You must run 'portsnap extract' before running 'portsnap update'.

How can it apply patches if an extract hasn't been done and is needed?
Does it knowingly, by default, apply patches to a tree it knows is "bad"?
Is that a known/documented behavior people rely on?
In this case, bad may simply mean installed at sysinstall time?

...
> Everything you see matches the expected behaviour according to
> your problem description:
> 
>> I believe the ports tree was generated when the OS was installed,
>> [...]
>> # portsnap fetch
>> [...]
>> # portsnap fetch update   <mistakenly left fetch in the cmd>
>> [...]
>> /usr/ports was not created by portsnap.
> 
> Whatever you have fetched, it was never extracted; what is still
> present in /usr/ports is not "compatible" with portsnap
...

I'll assume it's all the result of installing ports with a new sysinstall
months ago; I thought I had extracted and updated and used it already.
Why doesn't the ports install done at sysinstall time not do the equivalent
of a fetch & extract?  Would doing so be incompatible with anything else?

(I think this is the third time I've gotten caught by this <rant>stupid</rant>
behavior.  I guess it's a moot point since portsnap is going away.)

On 8/21/20 12:32 PM, RW via freebsd-questions wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:42:23 -0600
> Gary Aitken wrote:
...
>> I believe the ports tree was generated when the OS was installed, but
>> not sure. I'm also not sure how /usr/ports was upgraded after the OS
>> upgrade.
> 
> It wont be updated by when updating base.

Thanks.

...
> In general it's not a good idea to mix tools on the same tree or adopt
> a tree...

Does installing the ports tree when the system is installed and then
using portsnap count as mixing tools?  If so, it should be noted when the
option is presented at install time that if you are planning on updating the
ports tree, there's no point in installing it.

Will this same behavior exist with the switch to git?

Gary



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bee3767-b098-c278-ca67-581c7c3a87ac>