From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 18 08:49:43 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160BF106568B; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:49:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A9D8FC55; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.codelab.cz [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF0619E043; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r5bb235.net.upc.cz [86.49.61.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F92C19E045; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:49:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A8A6B20.1030100@quip.cz> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:49:36 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: cz, cs, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4A89CB20.3000408@quip.cz> <4A89CD0E.7010106@FreeBSD.org> <4A89D7FD.8080106@quip.cz> <4A89FA80.8090308@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4A89FA80.8090308@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster is not always recursive X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:49:43 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > Miroslav Lachman wrote: [...] >>I have seen similar problem in the past with amavisd-new + spamassassin >>and their dependencies, but it is much bigger and complicated tree of >>dependencies and I have not evidence recorded for it. >>Reported case with jpeg / gd / png is the simplest one I have seen. > > > Were these other cases also with the -r option, or were they when > doing "regular" upgrades? It was with regular upgrade, if I remember it well, but it was some time ago... I'll track it better next time (if it occurs). Miroslav Lachman