Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 12:06:32 +0300 (EEST) From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@netch.kiev.ua> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: ports/134182: portupgrade incorrectly handles manual reject to upgrade Message-ID: <200905030906.n4396WiG035936@segfault.kiev.ua> Resent-Message-ID: <200905030920.n439K10b004499@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 134182 >Category: ports >Synopsis: portupgrade incorrectly handles manual reject to upgrade >Confidential: no >Severity: serious >Priority: medium >Responsible: freebsd-ports-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Sun May 03 09:20:01 UTC 2009 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Valentin Nechayev >Release: FreeBSD 6.4-RELEASE i386 >Organization: private >Environment: FreeBSD 6.4-RELEASE >Description: In interactive mode (-i), portupgrade asks for each package whether to upgrade it. If some upgrade is rejected by operator, it excludes packages which are depended on it from following consideration. Adding -k to command line doesn't fix it for all packages except topmost one (specified in command line). This is conceptually incorrect. Package relations are protected by requirements in port Makefiles (*_DEPENDS) including package presence and version. Portupgrade should not add additional restrictions to its, and if some package is present and have enough version, portupgrade should not add unnatural intelligence rejecting to build another package depended on first one. This portupgrade feature isn't original; it has appeared approx. in 2008. Before this, portupgrade behavior was correct - it differed installation problem and explicit reject. >How-To-Repeat: Get an old system (e.g. with Xorg 7.3) and try to upgrade top-level packages (as Firefox) without upgrading low-level ones. >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200905030906.n4396WiG035936>