From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 8 02:25:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051B0106566C for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:25:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f221.google.com (mail-bw0-f221.google.com [209.85.218.221]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8771D8FC16 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:25:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: by bwz21 with SMTP id 21so1406093bwz.43 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:25:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZRgGjFeK0uTstc2bTOmYx4K9bwqnNJd0L7sc0iRgREc=; b=YWRHKj7attNfjUkj0XqvBrmsqgWc7lySKks5R9u/M7DE05JMzXOBG3//K+BNXgdLM0 2Wv2lVWlO19y9lqlihaG0Ih+oAdiTm3ACMAXbjX4QBs7WYdzIYGGV1GiLapKJGz3I8wN 3ll2ShDhkOY0B/wNqVciPWBxcurreXYQgHmXI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=rdG/jEg/dcaAQMS8Cs2ju6ClSzcpl5o4ZnlfQcXDgiMwni/JKlUPdBdwE9YV1hTfHH f/A/lykl+nKnMY1S0nV2+BsO9Ud/70kZNmD3xNiQzMq+EItg7VVZ4JQg2g8J9qcDkLxp pzrb18SByjHJXhkAMxHmd9ObkMyoiA0dBjCu8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.156.130 with SMTP id m2mr520202hbc.130.1247019911337; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:25:11 +0000 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Portupgrade not handling dependencies X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:25:13 -0000 > But I have seen portupgrade something and then a subsequent run >shows this port as being 'newer' than the version it's supposed to be. I've portsdb -Fu runs `make fetchindex`, grabbing the INDEX* file from whatever server you've told it to go to, and then rebuilds/updates the portsdb from that. So it's possible that with your csup you've obtained a port that is newer than the one recorded in the INDEX* file, when it was built on the remote server with an older ports tree some time ago. This is usually harmless. If it causes problems, and you can't wait for a fresh INDEX* file to be built remotely, or you have a modified ports tree that departs from the usual one so much that it makes sense to have your own INDEX*, then you can run "make index" in /usr/ports, or wherever your PORTSDIR is, and then portsdb -u. This is usually a lengthy process, unless you've stripped out large parts of your ports tree. >also noticed a few times it seemed like it was upgrading the same version(s) >over again. I just chalked this up to the ports system being in a state of > I've never seen this without an f,r, or R flag. Out of curiosity, do you remember the ports involved? b.