From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec 29 19:35:41 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A274016A586;
	Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:35:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mail.ciam.ru (ns.ciam.ru [213.247.195.75])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C6113C458;
	Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:35:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [87.240.16.199] (helo=[192.168.0.2])
	by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x)
	id 1H0Mob-000I2f-La; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:50:49 +0300
Message-ID: <45956389.1080802@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:50:49 +0300
From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vd@FreeBSD.org
References: <20061227100455.GA6003@qlovarnika.bg.datamax>
In-Reply-To: <20061227100455.GA6003@qlovarnika.bg.datamax>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kuriyama@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: portupgrade and gnupg update
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:35:41 -0000

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.