From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 28 09:48:14 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204EB10656A5 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:48:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpa.nu) Received: from nskntmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com (nskntmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com [61.9.168.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8028FC25 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:48:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpa.nu) Received: from nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com ([124.188.162.219]) by nskntmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20090728094812.BTXB1957.nskntmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com@nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com> for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:48:12 +0000 Received: from areilly.bpa.nu ([124.188.162.219]) by nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20090728094812.VJYF4023.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@areilly.bpa.nu> for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:48:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 6990 invoked by uid 501); 28 Jul 2009 09:48:09 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:48:09 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20090728094809.GB3717@duncan.reilly.home> References: <20090726222403.GA19875@duncan.reilly.home> <20090728001238.GA97218@duncan.reilly.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-RPD-ScanID: Class unknown; VirusThreatLevel unknown, RefID str=0001.0A150205.4A6EC95C.0079,ss=1,fgs=0 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Weird portmaster behaviour -- everything fails to install X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:48:14 -0000 On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:13:07PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Andrew Reilly wrote: > >corresponding to port revisions. Portmaster was checking the > >installed version against the MD5 hashes in the "old" version > >+CONTENTS file, and they weren't matching. > > FYI, portmaster doesn't do anything with the md5 hashes in +CONTENTS, but > duplicate entries will definitely cause "issues." Hmm. Well, *something* was whinging about the MD5 hashes not matching (and indeed they weren't), just before the install failed. Could it have been the process that builds a backup package from the installed files? Thanks for making portmaster, btw. It's a great tool, and I find that I prefer it to portupgrade, although I can't say that I can put my finger on why, exactly... Cheers, -- Andrew