Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:50:49 +0300 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> To: vd@FreeBSD.org Cc: kuriyama@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade and gnupg update Message-ID: <45956389.1080802@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20061227100455.GA6003@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> References: <20061227100455.GA6003@qlovarnika.bg.datamax>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Vasil Dimov wrote: > Hi, > > Currently I get this: > > % portversion -v gnupg > gnupg-1.4.6_2 < needs updating (port has 2.0.1) > gnupg-2.0.1 = up-to-date with port > % You did not show origins here. It can be an answer. I think they both were security/gnupg. > > This is incorrect and is caused by the fact that portupgrade is not > aware that security/gnupg has been moved to security/gnupg1. > > If I apply the following patch: > > Index: MOVED > =================================================================== > RCS file: /usr/local/pcvs/ports/MOVED,v > retrieving revision 1.1225 > diff -u -1 -r1.1225 MOVED > --- MOVED 26 Dec 2006 02:41:42 -0000 1.1225 > +++ MOVED 27 Dec 2006 09:58:39 -0000 > @@ -2617,2 +2617,3 @@ > devel/stlport-icc||2006-12-20|Has expired: does not work with stlport 4.6.2 > +security/gnupg|security/gnupg1|2006-12-20|foobar > security/gnupg-devel|security/gnupg|2006-12-21|gnupg-devel has been released as Gnupg 2.0 > > I get this: > > % portversion -v gnupg > gnupg-1.4.6_2 < needs updating (port has 1.4.6_3) (=> 'security/gnupg1') > gnupg-2.0.1 > succeeds port (port has 1.4.6_3) (=> 'security/gnupg1') > % > > which is weird... why does portversion think that gnupg-2.0.1 has > something to do with security/gnupg1? > Sure. I'll write it in my TODO list to investigate more. -- Dixi. Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45956389.1080802>