From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 30 17:42:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A7116A71E for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 17:42:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mark.evenson@gmx.at) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15B2C43D77 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 17:42:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mark.evenson@gmx.at) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 May 2006 17:42:40 -0000 Received: from panix2.panix.com (EHLO [IPv6:::1]) [166.84.1.2] by mail.gmx.net (mp043) with SMTP; 30 May 2006 19:42:40 +0200 X-Authenticated: #32963322 Message-ID: <447C840D.4000700@gmx.at> Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 19:42:37 +0200 From: Mark Evenson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060518) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "[LoN]Kamikaze" References: <447AE23F.9080809@gmx.at> <20060529205032.GA91562@xor.obsecurity.org> <447C655B.9040709@gmx.at> <447C691A.1040409@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <447C691A.1040409@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: anrays@gmail.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: make: Max recursion level (500) exceeded.: Resource temporarily unavailable 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, 30 May 2006 17:42:59 -0000 [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > Mark Evenson wrote: > >> Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >>> [...] >>> >>>> Let me know how I can give more information to help debug this. >>>> >>>> >>> Well, what else do you have set, or what were you trying to make? >>> >>> Kris >>> >>> >> Unfortunately I cannot reproduce the error. >> >> It occurred yesterday in the course of a "portupgrade -ras" for my local >> workstation, which I don't have a log of. >> > I would guess it's because of running -a with -r. Since -a walks the > ports tree in the right order neither -r nor -R are necessary. I do not > know the portupgrade source, but my guess is that -r added unnecessary > dependency checks for every single port on your system. > > "portupgrade" hasn't misbehaved in the past, but thanks for the hint about the unnecessary "-r" option. I picked it up when I first started using "portupgrade" (~2000?), and haven't really changed my behavior since.