From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 24 00:17:54 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0210C1065670 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:17:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D370B8FC0A for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47286BDC34; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:17:52 -0800 (PST) To: Jeremy Messenger In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:17:52 -0800 Message-ID: <61450.1293149872@tristatelogic.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/153300: configure error for misc/shared-mime-info-0.80 X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:17:54 -0000 In message , you wrote: >On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette > wrote: >> >> In message <201012201634.oBKGY97Q083871@freefall.freebsd.org>, you wrote: >> >>>Synopsis: configure error for misc/shared-mime-info-0.80 >>> >>>State-Changed-From-To: open->closed >>>State-Changed-By: mezz >>>State-Changed-When: Mon Dec 20 16:33:16 UTC 2010 >>>State-Changed-Why: >>>Not missing dependency, because it already depends on perl stuff. It sounds >>>like you didn't follow the Perl upgrade in /usr/ports/UPDATING. You need to >>>reinstall all ports that depend on Perl and it will solve your issue. >>> >>>http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=153300 >> > >> Because of this seemingly pervasive problem, I think that you should >> give some consideration to re-opening this PR. > >No need to. > >> On the other hand, if I am wrong about any part of my analysis, then by >> all means, please do enlighten me as to where I have gone wrong. > > >You have analysis it perfectly for what kind of problem you have. Only >a problem is that you didn't follow in the /usr/ports/UPDATING that >was documented about what you need to do to update your icu. Uggg. OK. My bad. You're right. I didn't see that item in there. (Maybe I can be forgiven for this particylar faux pas... that UPDATING document is now over 10,000 lines long. Does everyone actually read 100% of that??) In any case, I would still like to understand why it is the case that I need to make this extra special effort to run "portupgrade -fr devel/icu". In other words, why haven't all of the port dependencies been arranged in such a way so that "portupgrade -a" would not have achieved the same effect? Why do I have to _force_ rebuilds of everything depending on icu? Why don't all those rebuilds just occur automatically from "portupgrade -a"? My apologies if I am asking FAQs, but I obviously don't understand something fundamental here, and I'd like to. Should I assume that "portupgrade -a" only rebuilds those ports whose version numbers have changed in the ports tree, and that it ignores cases where the port version is unchanged and where some _other_ port that the given port depends on has been changed/upgraded? If so, then maybe a nice addition to portupgrade would be a new option that does what -a does _and_ that also forces the upgrade of any port `A' which depends upon any other port `B' whose version has changed (i.e. since port `a' was last built/installed). Does that seem reasonable? Regards, rfg