Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 03:07:10 -0400 From: Adam McLaurin <adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> To: ports@freebsd.org, kris@obsecurity.org, knu@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: portupgrade misbehavior Message-ID: <20040520030710.448ae885.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20040520070136.GA62040@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040520025535.41b274ac.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> <20040520070136.GA62040@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:36 -0700 Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 02:55:35AM -0400, Adam McLaurin wrote: > > > -# uname -a > > FreeBSD jake 5.2.1-RELEASE-p4 FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p4 #0: Tue Mar > > 30 > > 01:07:47 EST 2004 root@jake:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ESKI i386 > > > > > > Why the h*ll did portupgrade try to recompile zsh? I can't think of > > any > > logical explanation for this behavior. Perhaps I am missing > > something > > simple here; or perhaps I stumbled across a bug in portupgrade (or > > even > > ruby) ? > > Is your INDEX out of date? portupgrade assumes it is up-to-date and > bases its upgrade decisions on the contents. Compare the output of > portversion and pkg_version. > > Kris -# ls -al /usr/ports/INDEX* -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5089899 May 1 08:57 /usr/ports/INDEX -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4947853 Mar 15 18:20 /usr/ports/INDEX-5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 10911744 Apr 6 01:21 /usr/ports/INDEX.db Looking at http://www.freshports.org/shells/zsh , the zsh port hasn't been modified since March 23rd, so I should be OK on that front. And portversion does also report that zsh is up-to-date: -# portversion -v |grep -i zsh zsh-4.2.0 = up-to-date with port -- Adam "satyam, shivam, sundaram"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040520030710.448ae885.adam.mclaurin>