From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 8 08:03:53 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 DF422106566C for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:03:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF828FC0A for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:03:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MOS85-00062o-VO for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:03:49 +0000 Received: from pool-70-21-25-145.res.east.verizon.net ([70.21.25.145]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:03:49 +0000 Received: from nightrecon by pool-70-21-25-145.res.east.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:03:49 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Followup-To: gmane.os.freebsd.questions Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:05:30 -0400 Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-70-21-25-145.res.east.verizon.net Sender: news Subject: Re: Portupgrade not handling dependencies X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: nightrecon@verizon.net List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:03:54 -0000 b. f. wrote: >> 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 [snip] >>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? > Since everything built, installed, and ran correctly I never really payed it much attention. Some time ago, maybe a month or two back, it seemed like Apache 2 and PHP5 were getting rebuilt more often than I was used to seeing in the past. I just figured the ports were getting fine tuned on an almost daily basis and just chalked it up to that. But there was a time or two that Apache "updated" to the same version a few days in a row. After a few iterations it stopped. One example just occurred on my dev web server at home yesterday. I did not see pdflib-7.0.3 listed as needing updating when I ran portversion. Yet when I did portupgrade -a for the couple of others which did need updating I also got pdflib-7.0.3 upgraded to pdflib-7.0.4, even though I did not see it listed by portversion. So now if I run portsdb -uF && pkgdb -u && portversion it will indicate an ">" next to pdflib. Since it has caused no problem of any kind I don't worry about it. Usually when an oddity like this surfaces and I repeat my csup/portsdb/pkgdb and portversion run a day, or two, or three, later it just takes care of itself. Just an oddity which doesn't seem to be harmful. I just figure it's the ports system existing in a fluid state and until or unless something breaks I'm not concerned. -Mike