From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 18 18:10:29 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 4D34E106568C for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:10:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35CD8FC3F for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:10:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 17801 invoked by uid 399); 18 Aug 2009 18:10:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 18 Aug 2009 18:10:25 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4A8AEE8B.2010002@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:10:19 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090729) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> References: <4A89CB20.3000408@quip.cz> <4A89CD0E.7010106@FreeBSD.org> <4A89D7FD.8080106@quip.cz> <4A89FA80.8090308@FreeBSD.org> <4A8A6B20.1030100@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <4A8A6B20.1030100@quip.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 18:10:29 -0000 Miroslav Lachman wrote: > 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). If it's failing on a regular upgrade I start to suspect weirdness in your local setup since that's a dead-simple thing that would be very hard for portmaster to get wrong. I'm also suspicious because I took a look at the code a couple times yesterday and even using -r each port should still be getting the full treatment, which includes upgrading dependencies as needed. I will however put some more time into testing it today and get back to you. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection