Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:01:32 +0200
From:      Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro>
To:        Bob Perry <rperry4@earthlink.net>
Cc:        FreeBSD-Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: [Fwd: Portupgrade Stale Dependency Issue]
Message-ID:  <20031221230132.524b2db1.itetcu@apropo.ro>
In-Reply-To: <3FE5AE4C.10401@earthlink.net>
References:  <3FE4DC12.1000302@earthlink.net> <20031221015710.12c81d29.itetcu@apropo.ro> <3FE5AE4C.10401@earthlink.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:29:32 -0500
Bob Perry <rperry4@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:32:34 -0500
> >Bob Perry <rperry4@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Just ran pkgdb -F per prompt from the portversion program and got
> >the >following
> >>two messages:
> >>
> >>Stale origin: 'textproc/ruby-rdoc': perhaps moved or obsoleted.
> >>-> The port 'textproc/ruby-rdoc' was removed on 2003-12-15 because:
> >>       "integrated into ruby18 and ruby16-shim-ruby18"
> >>-> Hint: ruby-rdoc-0.9.0 is not required by any other package
> >>-> Hint: checking for overwritten files...
> >>-> No files installed by ruby-rdoc-0.9.0 have been overwritten by
> >>other packages.
> >>Deinstall ruby-rdoc-0.9.0 ? [no]
> >>
> >>Appears as though I'm being told that ruby-rdoc-0.9.0 can be
> >removed, >yet the
> >>default selection re deinstall is "no".  Am I missing something?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >As the hint says, you can deintsall it. After you're done with pkgdf
> >-F do a portupgrade -r on ruby18 or ruby16-shim-ruby18, which ever
> >you have.
> >  
> >
> Done.  Just having difficulty understanding some of the logic behind
> the program.   "Deinstall ruby-rdoc-0.9.0 ? [yes]" is easy for me to
> deal with.
>
> >>Second:
> >>Stale dependency: gnome2-2.4.1 -> openldap-client-2.1.23 
> >>(net/openldap21-client):
> >>openldap-client-2.0.27 (score:76%) ? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [no]

What I don't know is how the percent is beeing calculated. From my
experince for a percent above 75 is safe to respond yes.

> >It seems that you had down-graded your open-ldap. You now have
> >installed openladap 2.0.27 on you system, but when you've installed
> >gmnome you had 2.1.13; you can either choose:
> >a) yes (or all) and doing so will "point" gnome (or all) "to depend"
> >on openldap-client-2.0.27 or 
> >b) no, terminate pkgbd and do a portupgrade on openldap-client to
> >bring it back to 2.1.xx
> >
> >Choose what you need (if you have something that requires 2.0 do a if
> >not do b.)
> >
> >>I click the default selection "no" and I'm prompted to input a new 
> >>dependency.
> >>Assuming that I need to install openldap-client-2.1.23, I review the
> >>net/openldap21-client port directory and I only find a Makefile.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >And ? That make file sets CLIENT_ONLY=yes and includes the
> >../openldap21-server's Makefile so all is OK. Looking at the places
> >where CLINET_ONLY appears in the Make file tells that You can define
> >to have or not the docs installed and to have WITH_SASL with (Cyrus)
> >SASL2 support.
> >  
> >
> This clearly shows how FreeBSD-challenged I am.
> Thanks for taking the time to respond and explain this process.

No problem.



-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031221230132.524b2db1.itetcu>