From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 20 00:01:38 2004 Return-Path: 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 3DA1016A4CE; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtaw4.prodigy.net (mtaw4.prodigy.net [64.164.98.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BF943D2F; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (d4b5fd5f38f4f0730eb2d0af4c1eb9ee@adsl-67-115-73-128.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [67.115.73.128]) by mtaw4.prodigy.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4K71a3b009243; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 76AE0549B1; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:36 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Adam McLaurin Message-ID: <20040520070136.GA62040@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040520025535.41b274ac.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J/dobhs11T7y2rNN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040520025535.41b274ac.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: knu@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: portupgrade misbehavior X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 07:01:38 -0000 --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 02:55:35AM -0400, Adam McLaurin wrote: > -# uname -a > FreeBSD jake 5.2.1-RELEASE-p4 FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p4 #0: Tue Mar 30 > 01:07:47 EST 2004 root@jake:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ESKI i386 >=20 >=20 > Why the h*ll did portupgrade try to recompile zsh? I can't think of any > logical explanation for this behavior. Perhaps I am missing something > simple here; or perhaps I stumbled across a bug in portupgrade (or even > ruby) ? Is your INDEX out of date? portupgrade assumes it is up-to-date and bases its upgrade decisions on the contents. Compare the output of portversion and pkg_version. Kris --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFArFfPWry0BWjoQKURArBYAJ0WKwVDE2MZ7C4Ayj+Owk149joCnACgsv1B VRFec1d4+N3FAruZNn08l40= =te94 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN--