Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:04:37 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Carmel <carmel_ny@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Version of "opencv-core-2.3.1" Message-ID: <4E75DE55.7080206@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP124381DBDEC52F570FEF1CA93080@phx.gbl> References: <BLU0-SMTP124381DBDEC52F570FEF1CA93080@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig5B6DCCD22037D4DA175F0319
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 18/09/2011 12:36, Carmel wrote:
> When running: "/usr/sbin/pkg_version -vIL=3D", I received this rather
> strange output:=20
>=20
> opencv-core-2.3.1 > succeeds index (index has 2.3.1=
=2Ea)
>=20
> I would have expected output to be more like this:
>=20
> apache-2.2.20_1 < needs updating (index has 2.2.2=
1)
>=20
> I have never seen this before. Is there something broken? I have a
> suspicion that programs like "portupgrade" or "portmanager" will not
> properly handle this.
>=20
> This is on a FreeBSD-8.2 amd64 system.
It's not a particularly rare thing. All it means is that the INDEX file
is somewhat out of date. There's many reasons why that can happen --
eg. plenty of ways to commit things to the ports that will break
generating the INDEX, the machines doing the generation getting their
knickers in a twist or not being able to upload the new INDEX to the
right servers.
If you wait for a few hours and re-csup it should be fixed. AFAIK, I
don't think this affects portsnap because it generates the INDEX in a
different way. Or you can create your own INDEX if you want.
However, for most uses, you don't actually need a 100% accurate INDEX.
If you install from ports and set any OPTIONS to non-default values,
then chances are the default INDEX won't match the actual dependencies
in your ports tree anyhow. Same if you use a non-default version of
perl, python, mysql, postgresql, apache or several other important
ports. That doesn't impede normal ports usage.
portmaster(8) only uses the INDEX file if you specifically tell it to:
usually that's if run it in packages-only mode. portupgrade(8) -- it's
been a while since I've used portmaster, but as far as I recall, it
didn't particularly need the INDEX either. Even if a broken INDEX does
screw things up, generally what will happen is that your upgrading
session will fail to upgrade certain packages leaving the old versions
in place and still working, and you can just wait a while and try again
later.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enig5B6DCCD22037D4DA175F0319
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk513l8ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIz1DACfdapHMqRGDzL6rB/FdSpvC92h
NaMAnRDAal50FWdmpTHAsQJ+25k/1lsv
=Ryjn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig5B6DCCD22037D4DA175F0319--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E75DE55.7080206>