From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 14 03:24:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0313337B401 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost1.bishopston.net (mailhost1.bishopston.net [68.147.148.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245BC43FA3 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:24:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jamie@bishopston.net) X-Catflap-Envelope-From: X-Catflap-Envelope-To: Received: from catflap.bishopston.net (smmsp@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by catflap.bishopston.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6EAOsHV053363 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:24:54 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jamie@catflap.bishopston.net) Received: (from root@localhost) by catflap.bishopston.net (8.12.9/8.12.7/Submit) id h6EAOrc9053362 for questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:24:53 +0100 (BST) To: questions@freebsd.org From: Jamie Jones Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:10:28 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <01058174691$005758$0001$h6E9OnHV005744@mail2news.bishopston.net> User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_10,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_AGENT version=2.55-catflap_1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55-catflap_1 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) Subject: Re: make install fails X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:24:57 -0000 On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:24:51 +0100 (BST), Dave Goode wrote in newsgroup bish.lists.freebsd.questions: > Is this a wise move? One of the things I've liked about FreeBSD over the years > is that it just works (most of the time!), with no compulsion to move to the > next version. If this is the case, surely we are now compelled to upgrade or > patch whether we want to or not? > I hope this new development is either backed out, or made backwards-compatible > in some way to permit versions < 4,8 to continue working. I agree. I'm in the dark as much as you, but it may be an oversight - whoever made the code change may not have realised the new pkg_info was so recent.. I don't know. I run 4.5 on my router, and 5.1 on my desktop, but my server is still on 4.4 (its colocated, so rather tricky to update, and its quite busy) I expect its reasonable to say 4.4 is too old (I'm planning on updating it soon) but if I was on 4.6.2 I'd expect a bit more life out of it before things stop working! >> As a work around, if you define the environment variable >> FORCE_PKG_REGISTER to anything from the command line before running >> the install, it will work (as it will skip the part that checks if the port >> is already installed.) > > Thanks, Jamie. I'll give that a try today and see if it works for me. Since writing that last message, I've updated my pkg_info. For my machine on 4.4 I needed to download and replace /usr/share/Mk/* and then /usr/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/* Your /usr/share/Mk may be recent enough.. I don't know. from there, cd to /usr/src/usr.sbin/pkg_install and make make install make clean Alternatively, download my binaries, made from 4.8-release sources. De-tar the bzipped archive, and move the files from usr.sbin into /usr/sbin and the files from usr.share.man.man1 into /usr/share/man/man1 - being careful to preserve file permissions. http://www.bishopston.com/jamie/pkg_install/pkg_install_binaries_4.8.tar.bz2 (approx 90K) Cheers, Jamie -- Jamie Jones, http://www.bishopston.com/jamie/ ---- 164 days to Christmas! Word of the day: "otorhinolaryngologist" ----- "I'm not big, and I'm not clever - and I'm definitely not funny." ----------------- "They love their Parasite God - Yet they crucify me." ------- The valid reply address on this posting expires in 7 days time.