Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      08 Sep 2002 14:58:32 -0400
From:      Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Pat Lashley <patl+freebsd@volant.org>
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: [CONCLUSION] What to do about Mozilla
Message-ID:  <1031511512.60099.6.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <4150422704.1031478579@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org>
References:   <1031382538.46865.1.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <3703892704.1031440015@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> <1031465323.644.13.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com>  <4150422704.1031478579@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--=-O7QMEvl6LHYhi5kOfxRB
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 05:49, Pat Lashley wrote:
> --On Sunday, September 08, 2002 02:08:38 AM -0400 Joe Marcus Clarke=20
> <marcus@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>=20
> > ...
> > This problem should be fixed now if you make sure the origin pointed to
> > in your +CONTENTS file is correct.  Both pkg_version and portupgrade
> > report no problems on my mozilla laptop, or my mozilla-devel desktop.
>=20
> I hand edited the +CONTENTS files, but then after a cvsup and index rebui=
ld,
> portversion showed my 1.1 mozilla ports as being downrev of the 1.0_2,1=20
> ports.
> And when I upgraded the XFree86 ports to 4.2.0 the recursive update=20
> downgraded
> my mozilla ports back to 1.0_2,1.
>=20
> I had written a section outlining how I was only seeing one copy of the
> mozilla ports in the INDEX and what I thought the problem was; but it
> turns out that somehow my INDEX.db was noticably newer than the INDEX
> itself.  I've re-cvsupp'd and re-built the indexes and now I see both.
> So I'll retract my claim that the split is unfinished.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> But now I've got the old versions installed; and don't see any clean way
> to upgrade to the new ones.  (I do not consider manual pkg_deinstall and
> portinstall to be clean.)  I've tweaked the origin in the +CONTENTS files=
;
> but that doesn't seem to make any difference at this point.  (And is, I
> suspect, actually counter-productive.)  I have a feeling that no matter
> what I do, I'll wind up with both versions installed...

Can you explain the "old" and "new" versions.  Are you referring to
mozilla-embedded-devel and mozilla-headers-devel?  If so, I committed a
fix yesterday to correct their split.  That may be what you were seeing
previously.

Joe

>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -Pat
--=20
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team	::	marcus@FreeBSD.org
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome

--=-O7QMEvl6LHYhi5kOfxRB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQA9e53Yb2iPiv4Uz4cRAig3AKCr1ACujGhvM9NuoySosVWgDQKW2ACeJoLc
5PWXyjXv+fOB2pgWpoGQ1Rk=
=aZ8c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-O7QMEvl6LHYhi5kOfxRB--


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1031511512.60099.6.camel>