From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 29 16:46:40 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D33F37B401; Thu, 29 May 2003 16:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1828343F85; Thu, 29 May 2003 16:46:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TNkYPx014716; Thu, 29 May 2003 19:46:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20030528214711.GA94049@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030528220215.GA94270@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030528222144.GA667@crow.dom2ip.de> <20030528222244.GA94418@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030528234914.GA1987@crow.dom2ip.de> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 19:46:33 -0400 To: Thomas Moestl , Kris Kennaway From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org cc: knu@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portversion/portupgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 23:46:40 -0000 At 10:34 PM -0400 5/28/03, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >At 1:49 AM +0200 5/29/03, Thomas Moestl wrote: >>I just got portupgrade to work on my box, however by changing >>the dependency in the Makefile from ruby-bdb1 to ruby-bdb >>(as already hinted in a comment) and dropping the attached >>patch into files/ to make it use ruby-bdb instead of ruby-bdb1 >>by default. > >I followed the suggestions from Thomas, and it seems to be >going OK for me. There were a few oddities in building things >though, which I should figure out. Initially I somehow managed >to build portupgrade without building ruby-bdb. It was even >working fine, until I did tried 'portversion' and that complained >about a stale-dependency (the missing ruby-bdb). Okay, I'm not sure what happened to me yesterday, but I started over from scratch again, and it seems to be working OK. I made the makefile change that Thomas suggested, and added his patch. I then ran into trouble because the makefiles for ruby and ruby-devel want to rummage through PKG_DBDIR for out-of-date ports. This does not work well if ruby is the first port you make after removing /var/db/pkg (which is what I did). The following update fixes that for lang/ruby-devel, and a similar patch would be good for lang/ruby: --- Makefile.orig Wed May 28 19:06:58 2003 +++ Makefile Thu May 29 19:18:32 2003 @@ -166,6 +166,8 @@ ${INSTALL_DATA} ${WRKSRC}/ext/zlib/doc/zlib.rd ${RUBY_DOCDIR} ${CP} -R ${WRKSRC}/doc/* ${RUBY_DOCDIR}/ .endif +# Have to make sure PKG_DBDIR exists before we `cd' into it. + @if ! test -d ${PKG_DBDIR} ; then mkdir ${PKG_DBDIR} ; fi @${ECHO} "Deinstalling obsoleted packages that are now part of ruby..." @cd ${PKG_DBDIR}; for portname in ${OBSOLETED_MODULES}; do \ for pkg in ${RUBY_PKGNAMEPREFIX}$$portname-*; do \ I must admit that I am uneasy that ruby-devel installs itself as the package "ruby". This can be confusing, because you can actually install both ruby and ruby-devel on sparc64. The ports for sysutils/portupgrade and lang/ruby-devel do seem to do the right things, it just looks a bit confusing. Also, if you then go to pkg_deinstall ruby, it thinks you want to deinstall both versions of ruby. I also noticed that when ruby-devel is built, it prints out the lines: To build a ruby related port for Ruby 1.8, define RUBY_VER=1.8 on the make command line or in /etc/make.conf. If you want to use Ruby 1.8 as the default instead of 1.6, define RUBY_DEFAULT_VER=1.8 also. I am inclined to put those lines in my /etc/make.conf, just in case other ruby-related ports might be confused by this special setup for sparc64. However, with all that done, portupgrade, portversion and related commands seem to be working OK for me. I will continue testing things, but for now it seems to me that Thomas's patches for portupgrade will solve the problems on sparc64. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu