Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:43:06 -0700 From: Jeffrey Bouquet <jeffreybouquet@yahoo.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SOLVED: pkg version mismatch [succeeds port...] Message-ID: <556D264A.7070107@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <44iob7upiu.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <1433158692.84575.YahooMailBasic@web140904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <44iob7upiu.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/01/15 13:44, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> [pkg@ snipped, because it's irrelevant]
>
> Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> writes:
>
>> I noticed the ports tree here had net/uget 1.10.4_1 even after "svn up"... while
>> pkg upgrading installed 2.0. "pkg version" (one of 3 ways) reported
>> "succeeds port"... was about to post a question about pkg, but it can be fixed
>> by
>>
>> cd /usr/ports/net/uget
>> svn revert . -R
>>
>> [found at stackoverflow]
>>
>> [I've about thirty of so of those directories to fix up, for installed ports... it seems].
>>
>> Wondering if the fix can be put in CAVEATS or something in the pkg version
>> man page... "for those using subversion..."
>>
>> also if ever a man page with many examples is crafted for subversion on FreeBSD,
>> that could be one of them.
>>
>> Others:
>>
>> cd /usr/ports
>> svn resolve .
> These would not be useful to document unless you can document how you
> got into those situations in the first place.
I think it was disk failure and svn did not like resuming the updates to the
directories newly crafted into a everyday install type system from backup.
[ I prefer keeping the same tree across years of updates because I am used
to saving build logs, .htm and .msg and .txt hint files, etc within the
directories. ... for easier reference]
> "svn revert" is only
> necessary if you made local changes to the sources under svn control,
I typically use it to build, ports, say, that are broken due to no fetch
possible, for
which I already have the sources, so I can "svn revert Makefile" and
similar uses.
> and even then usually if svn can't automatically merge upstream changes
> into yours. "svn resolve" is the way to sort out the merge if svn can't
> do it.
Just a few days ago I used "svn resolve" to tune the ports tree. Maybe the
side effects of that, and/or the response I type to the svn questions
(always TC, always
r, for those familiar with the two types...text and tree, respetively)
are what causes the version mismatches
that were present. [ OR the situation in the first paragraph above. ]
Part of a daily svn log:
............................................................................
Updating 'usr/ports':
......................... [snipped]
Summary of conflicts:
Text conflicts: 0 remaining (and 2 already resolved)
Tree conflicts: 0 remaining (and 2 already resolved)
..................................................................................................................
I tend to annotate uses into hint files (.txt .msg .dat .how .htm)
in /usr/src RE svn
Has saved a ports tree from newly needing to be downloaded more than once
>
> It sounds like you're not intending to make local changes at all. In
> that case, I'd recommend you use something else (probably portsnap) to
> maintain your ports tree.
I think, am not sure, that portsnap and svn are the only two. I prefer
the more cvs-like workings
of svn, and have never used portsnap... I think the former enables one more
fine-grained tuning unless one knows the workings of the latter. I
could be wrong
but...
Just information for the list... as a followup. Not wanting to prolong
the thread without
reason.....
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?556D264A.7070107>