Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:28:23 -0700 From: Mel Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports requires pkg 1.6.0, but 1.5.6 is the latest available Message-ID: <560D0AC7.2040007@bluerosetech.com> In-Reply-To: <448u7nfqfo.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <5609D023.70402@bluerosetech.com> <CAN6yY1tzo6QobOKqB53yKahC42rS3OnLMGKVTVnDOL%2BU3QfLhw@mail.gmail.com> <560A47FE.6010507@bluerosetech.com> <560AAD43.5000207@unfs.us> <560AF5CF.2080909@bluerosetech.com> <20150929213632.GA23442@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <44bncjsn5d.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <44eghffsoq.fsf@totally-fudged-out-message-id> <448u7nfqfo.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2015-09-30 16:16, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > In short, there is nothing broken in pkg(8) per se. I am pretty sure > this problem does not come up if you do everything from quarterly or > everything from head; it's strictly an issue of conflicts between the > two. More to the point, that using the default pkg settings in 10.2 and the default branch for the ports tree resulted a situation where the two were not compatible. Delaying the bump to MINIMAL_PKG_VERSION until pkg-1.6.0 hit pkg.freebsd.org/*/quarterly would have avoided the issue. If that wisdom reaches the right people among the FreeBSD committers, then this thread will have served its purpose, IMHO. It sounds like it did, so yay us being useful with feedback. > Furthermore, I suspect that if the original poster had updated his > quarterly-branch version of pkg to the head version, he probably would > have been able to build the other port from the head tree. Yes, if she had known there would at some point be a timing issue between repo updates and bumps to MINIMAL_PKG_VERSION, she would have deployed a non-default configuration a long time ago. ;)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?560D0AC7.2040007>