From nobody Sat Jul 11 04:46:06 2026 X-Original-To: freebsd-pkgbase@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gxx3w4MSTz6ksjc for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 04:46:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from the.lists@mgm51.com) Received: from oneyou.mgm51.net (oneyou.mgm51.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:af30::100]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) client-digest SHA384) (Client CN "oneyou.mgm51.net", Issuer "Mike's Certificate Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4gxx3v5sJhz3fJJ for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 04:46:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from the.lists@mgm51.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=mgm51.com header.s=mgm51.com-10 header.b=PCeIWr2N; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of the.lists@mgm51.com designates 2607:f2f8:af30::100 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=the.lists@mgm51.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=mgm51.com Received: from sentry.mgm51.net (sentry.mgm51.net [IPv6:2001:558:6017:e3:1130:5cc5:3dee:2458]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519) (Client CN "sentry.mgm51.net", Issuer "Mike's Certificate Authority" (verified OK)) by oneyou.mgm51.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4gxx3h00TKzHh0v for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 00:46:08 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mgm51.com; s=mgm51.com-10; t=1783745168; bh=omzQqXgInHkWEZFarw51vYFR1pFtMITeialolUZQEig=; h=Date:Subject:From; b=PCeIWr2NDfi2IG0YBJILPgYY7koi81fL0numcXgoPe4Hbo73z+GWBInGhdNy95KGR JlrlL8fKZ6/TdNdZjzYp5rJaslyUtVnD07U/EoF06ld1AVZtsRMcdBtYuJifJBp8JC /J5EQ2NFB/QFQ5mGcbEOMAvuEdR8S8kkh5oYDlzFhkFD539OHeCLMK1WLbEGlfLFoc APFbEFBSYA4G8ZXpsGSMurBqu3vcsQeTnNoEu0ZkwvokEXw1UlWPqoN9mCTKMSJVUY CUy/5ei64uX2U2lRPDVE9Dx9oNBNpKBKJMm7+8coMMpUmKC3BwJNvF9M9WuUiV6iuk mxDV0OzUMK6Jw== Received: from [10.11.2.100] (bigbloat.24cl.home [10.11.2.100]) by sentry.mgm51.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gxx3g1C2czRcpy for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 00:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 00:46:06 -0400 List-Id: Packaging the FreeBSD base system List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-pkgbase List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: pkg upgrade yields conflicts in message To: freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org References: <62849618-c9b7-4310-8555-cf7a91e4af9d@mgm51.com> <4e9a04c9-512c-44c0-8e0c-3da2704da608@yahoo.com> <2ef5ceae-791f-486a-bc5a-504dc4a97f61@mgm51.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Mike In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.99 / 15.00]; DWL_DNSWL_MED(-2.00)[mgm51.com:dkim]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.994]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[mgm51.com,reject]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f2f8:af30::100:c]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[mgm51.com:s=mgm51.com-10]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25795, ipnet:2607:f2f8::/32, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-pkgbase@FreeBSD.org]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[mgm51.com:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4gxx3v5sJhz3fJJ X-Spamd-Bar: ----- On 7/10/2026 2:01 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > On 7/10/26 09:36, Mike wrote: >> >> >> On 6/27/2026 12:37 AM, Mark Millard wrote: >>> On 6/26/26 15:54, Mike wrote: >>>> OK, I have a 15.1 test system, loaded with FreeBSD 15.1 AMD from a >>>> mem img. >>>> >>>> >>>> I went through the install, which went well. >>>> >>>> Then I loaded the ports pkgs I usually use, which also went well. >>>> >>>> >>>> Now, when I run >>>>      pkg upgrade >>>> as I had usually done to see if there were any updates to the ports pkgs >>>> I had installed, I see the following ... >>>> >>>> ==================== >>>> >>>> Updating FreeBSD-ports repository catalogue... >>>> FreeBSD-ports repository is up to date. >>>> Updating FreeBSD-ports-kmods repository catalogue... >>>> FreeBSD-ports-kmods repository is up to date. >>>> Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue... >>>> FreeBSD repository is up to date. >>>> All repositories are up to date. >>>> Checking for upgrades (15 candidates): .......... done >>>> Processing candidates (15 candidates): .... done >>>> Checking integrity... done (9 conflicting) >>>>    - libcdb-g2020082801 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with tinycdb-0.81 >>>> [installed] on /usr/local/lib/libcdb.a >>> >>> One of the Makefiles is explicit about it: >>> >>> # grep -r CONFLICT /usr/ports/*/*cdb/Makefile >>> /usr/ports/databases/tinycdb/Makefile:CONFLICTS_INSTALL=        libcdb # >>> lib/libcdb.a > > My notes here are about the lang/gcc* part of things. > >>> >>>>    - gcc14-14.2.0_4 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with gcc14- >>>> devel-14.3.1.s20260327,1 [installed] on /usr/local/bin/c++14 >>>>    - gcc14-14.2.0_4 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with gcc14- >>>> devel-14.3.1.s20260327,1 [FreeBSD-ports] on /usr/local/bin/c++14 >>>>    - gcc13-13.3.0_3 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with gcc13- >>>> devel-13.4.1.s20260326 [installed] on /usr/local/bin/c++13 >>>>    - gcc13-13.3.0_3 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with gcc13- >>>> devel-13.4.1.s20260326 [FreeBSD-ports] on /usr/local/bin/c++13 >>>>    - gcc12-devel-12.4.1.s20250702 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with >>>> gcc12-12.4.0_3 [installed] on /usr/local/bin/c++12 >>>>    - gcc12-devel-12.4.1.s20250702 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with >>>> gcc13-13.3.0_3 [FreeBSD-ports] on /usr/local/include/libgccjit++.h >>>>    - gcc12-devel-12.4.1.s20250702 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with gcc13- >>>> devel-13.4.1.s20260326 [installed] on /usr/local/include/libgccjit++.h >>>>    - gcc12-devel-12.4.1.s20250702 [FreeBSD-ports] conflicts with gcc13- >>>> devel-13.4.1.s20260326 [FreeBSD-ports] on /usr/local/include/ >>>> libgccjit++.h >>> >>> Some lang/gcc* vs. lang/gcc*-devel conflicts are not new and are >>> documented in the Makefiles: >>> >>> # grep -r CONFLICT /usr/ports/lang/gcc*/Makefile >>> /usr/ports/lang/gcc12-devel/Makefile:CONFLICTS= gcc12 >>> /usr/ports/lang/gcc12/Makefile:CONFLICTS=       gcc12-devel >>> /usr/ports/lang/gcc13-devel/Makefile:CONFLICTS= gcc13 >>> /usr/ports/lang/gcc13/Makefile:CONFLICTS=       gcc13-devel >>> /usr/ports/lang/gcc14/Makefile:CONFLICTS=       gcc14-devel >>> /usr/ports/lang/gcc15/Makefile:CONFLICTS=       gcc15-devel >>> /usr/ports/lang/gcc16/Makefile:CONFLICTS=       gcc16-devel > > lang/gcc1[23]* all conflict with each other for: > /usr/local/include/libgccjit++.h The file is in the wrong place for > allowing independent installations. > > Also, the lang/gcc1[456]-devel ones not listing the matching non-devel > one as conflicting may set up for the -devel ones to be preferred (since > it is not declared to have conflicts). (Seems to have listed the wrong > direction if only one direction of conflict is to be listed: > lang/gcc*-devel likely should never be considered preferred.) > > This much looks like port issues to me, not directly pkg issues. pkg has > been given garbage-in (incomplete) information when it has to deal with > simultaneous installs. > > (The above is separate from the general question of why all the variants > were considered in the first place. That might be more of a pkg issue. > See later note.) > >>> >>> (Looks like lang/gcc[456]-devel do not document that other direction for >>> the conflicts. and 12-devel and 13 did document their conflict status.) >>> >>> However, if I understand right, modern pkg has gotten better at >>> detecting and reporting conflicts, with an example file as well more of >>> the time, even when the Makefiles are not explicit. >>> >>>> Checking integrity... done (0 conflicting) >>>> Your packages are up to date. >>>> >>>> ========================================== >>>> >>>> >>>> A comment ... >>>> >>>> I dislike seeing the word "conflicting" in the routine commands I run. >>>> >>>> What did I do incorrectly? >>> >>> Looks like no 2 installs conflict with each other. I'm not sure that you >>> did anything incorrectly.Mostly you have -devel installs for gcc* but >>> one of them is not: gcc12-12.4.0_3 [installed] . Is that as you intended? >>> >> >>> Is that as you intended? >> >> I didn't change any of the options to use -devel installs.  I suspect it >> was done by one of the pkgs I installed.  That's why I asked. > > Well, as I understand it, pkg deals with such conflicts by picking a > non-conflicting subset when it can. (It may have a biased to preserve > what is already installed, I'm not sure.) > > Nothing present forced it to pick the non-devel lang/gcc* alternatives, > although non-devel lang/gcc* are normally preferable (when available) > unless one is deliberately testing lang/gcc*-devel usage: > lang/gcc*-devel are upstream in-development versions leading to the next > releases and they update more often than the non-devel variants and have > a more uncertain status from update to update until released. > > In other words, absent detailed information about the context, I'd guess > that the lang/gcc*-devel usage should be replaced by non-devel usage. > >> >> So far, everything on the test server has been running as expected, in >> spite of those conflicts.  But it is a minimal-usage server.  So I'll >> just go along with them for now. > > This could be a good reason to force each -devel variant to be replaced > by the matching non-devel variant. (But I do not know the context.) > >> >> However, I may have a higher level of concern when it comes to moving my >> two production servers over to the pkg install system when (if) such >> conflicts continue to occur with generic pkg installs. > > I do not really have enough established context to attempt replicating > so many lang/gcc* being under consideration in an way analogous to > whatever happened for you. I've only enough context to identify the > issues with how lang/gcc* have been defined. > >> >> Thanks for your explanation. >> >> And I apologize for taking so long to get back to you.  Life happened.  :) > > I do not really have enough established context to attempt replicating so many lang/gcc* being under consideration in an way analogous to whatever happened for you. I've only enough context to identify the issues with how lang/gcc* have been defined. Yeah, that aside. I look to FreeBSD as a stable operating system and trust it (and ZFS) to take care of my multiple-terabytes of data on my FreeBSD data server. So let me ask a question to the list ... Would you trust multiple terabytes of data to an OS that is presenting you with conflict warning messages? imo, the pkg/port folk of FreeBSD need to get their act together. Enough of the attempted rationalizations of the conflicts. Just fix the problem. Period. Full stop.