From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 11 00:02:25 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229F016A400 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:02:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D7E13C455 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:02:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6F21A3C19; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [192.168.1.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014455119F; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E94D3BC90; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:02:23 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Jeff Anton Message-ID: <20070611000223.GA28536@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20070610120017.645B116A4DA@hub.freebsd.org> <466C8611.5020009@hesiod.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <466C8611.5020009@hesiod.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkgdb -F calling portupgrade -a X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:02:25 -0000 On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:15:29PM -0700, Jeff Anton wrote: > I'm very surprised and upset that running pkgdb -F has started a whole > upgrade of my stable machine. Well, it didn't. > I'm sure hacker's isn't the right list for this Correct. > but it is so amazing that I don't know what the right list would be Ports problems go to the ports list. Problems with a particular port (e.g. portupgrade) go to that list and/or the port's maintainer. > Deinstall xorg-manpages-6.9.0 ? [no] yes > ---> Deinstalling 'xorg-manpages-6.9.0' > [Updating the pkgdb in /var/db/pkg ... - 70 packages > found (-1 +0) (...) done] > --> Done. > Stale dependency: Xaw3d-1.5E_1 -> xf86dgaproto-2.0.2 (x11/xf86dgaproto): > Install stale dependency? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] n > New dependency? (? to help): . > Abort. > 62.580u 41.058s 2:08.82 80.4% 157+2488k 1300+1603io 12pf+0w You need to go through the xorg 7.2 upgrade. Most of what you chose to do was actually damaging your port installations, e.g. > ---> Checking the package registry database > Stale dependency: Xaw3d-1.5E_1 -> xf86dgaproto-2.0.2 (x11/xf86dgaproto): > Install stale dependency? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] n ^ > New dependency? (? to help): > Delete this? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] ^^^^ Whee, you've deleted metadata that was required for correctness of future upgrades. > Deleted. > Stale dependency: Xaw3d-1.5E_1 -> libXdamage-1.1.1 (x11/libXdamage): > libXft-2.1.7_1 (score:25%) ? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [no] > Install stale dependency? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] n > New dependency? (? to help): > Delete this? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] > Deleted. > Stale dependency: Xaw3d-1.5E_1 -> renderproto-0.9.2 (x11/renderproto): > Install stale dependency? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] n > New dependency? (? to help): > Delete this? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] > Deleted. > Stale dependency: Xaw3d-1.5E_1 -> compositeproto-0.3.1 (x11/compositeproto): > Install stale dependency? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] n > New dependency? (? to help): > Delete this? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] > Deleted. > Stale dependency: Xaw3d-1.5E_1 -> libXv-1.0.3,1 (x11/libXv): > libXft-2.1.7_1 (score:22%) ? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [no] > Install stale dependency? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [yes] n This is the only part that doesn't make sense. Are you sure you didn't do e.g. 'y^Hn' where that was not interpreted by the terminal as a backspace but as a string beginning with 'y'? It's the only way I can think that this would trigger the 'yes' branch. Anyway, it wasn't doing 'portupgrade -a' but trying to bring your system up to a consistent state. Really what you probably should have done was either leave your system alone (i.e. not answered 'yes' to requests to modify things), or go through the documented x.org 7.2 upgrade procedure to perform the upgrade correctly and completely. Kris