From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 27 12:19:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026E01065670 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:19:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825838FC0C for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:19:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (pD9E2E80C.dip.t-dialin.net [217.226.232.12]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3FC2E1FE; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:19:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4855B1AFBAD; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:19:33 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1235737173; bh=CSHnyZquxhpUjz3zvrI2K6XtwsK90g35h 4n3xXpBbm8=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=p+HfqG9QPZ8S6SwGDce+KynqYl57oCgOAR6TXeSycQBBvayn/alGVFPdVx5khUwM4 xa+FfvcFSIzszM6MQu4i2f6jkC90wzJfkpDzkRzlif2jDeD40Sk6ZRPkokoYemFrSk6 Q8nEHQwD6//O3clDRLt8XXpjQfCdlyGbnX8+SGrHg6RbmFnkxTm4NxJvxG9/DSdRnRF 7mbRN+5y7EYxs9cQcHmNOFyRbakzX6FObP+yU7PF8A1rlwC3V5qSuPNNfwri9niq9LP spBUM7EcEDPG399IOOEIGhkjNIoVoPfPAjdp9TM42CssXCGOzNnSyZFZcBTZTxd/gsL WadBIq45Q== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.3/8.13.8/Submit) id n1RCJWCJ006173; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:19:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:19:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20090227131931.18306giseysouk8w@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:19:31 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Dan Nelson References: <20090227055737.GF45976@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20090227055737.GF45976@dan.emsphone.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3) / FreeBSD-8.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-ID: DD3FC2E1FE.8E022 X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-13.504, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 1.40, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:25:51 +0000 Cc: Nate Eldredge , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade spurious skips X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:19:48 -0000 Quoting Dan Nelson (from Thu, 26 Feb 2009 =20 23:57:37 -0600): > In the last episode (Feb 26), Nate Eldredge said: >> In the past few months I've noticed a bug in portupgrade. When I update >> my ports tree and do `portupgrade -a', often a few ports will be skipped, >> supposedly because another port on which they depend failed to install. >> However, the apparently failed port actually did not fail, and if I rerun >> `portupgrade -a', some of the skipped ports will install successfully >> without complaint. After enough iterations I can eventually get all of >> them. >> >> I'd like to file a PR about this, but it's a little bit tricky coming up >> with a test case, since the behavior depends on having outdated packages >> installed, and on the dependencies between them. Moreover, after I run >> `portupgrade -a' and notice the problem, the state of the installed >> packages has changed and the same packages aren't skipped the next time. >> So my question is whether anyone has ideas about how to construct a >> reasonable test case that could help me make this reproducible and easier >> to investigate. Any thoughts? > > "me too".. It seems to happen frequently when doing > 20 or so ports. > Every week or so I upgrade old ports and don't have problems, but after a > gnome or xorg update that ends up bumping the portrevision for half my > installed ports, it always takes three or four "portupgrade -a" loops for > everything to buid. > > If you've got ZFS, you can snapshot your filesystems, and if portupgrade > fails, roll back to the snapshot and do it again to see if it happens on t= he > same port a second time. Or if you know ruby, you could instrument the co= de > that checks for port build errors and see if it's got a bug in it... There's a more easy solution, pipe the output of portupgrade to a =20 logfile. This way you can have a look what happened with the port =20 which was reported as broken. Maybe there's a dependency missing, and =20 after updating other ports after the failure, this dependency was =20 satisfied so that the next run succeeds. Bye, Alexander. --=20 A squeegee by any other name wouldn't sound as funny. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137