Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:21:21 -0500
From:      Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>
To:        "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <danm@prime.gushi.org>
Cc:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Maybe this is a bug, should I report it?
Message-ID:  <20071205092121.1c8dcaac.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071205013053.I89093@prime.gushi.org>
References:  <20071205013053.I89093@prime.gushi.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In response to "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <danm@prime.gushi.org>:

> But why is it that portupgrade feels the need to upgrade gpg to gpg2, when 
> gpg is still in the tree?
> 
> I'm running a portupgrade -rf gettext, and didn't previously have gpg2 
> installed.

Show us the output that demonstrates this problem.

My first guess is that it's not portupgrade that's doing it, but that
some port you're upgrading now lists gpg2 as a dependency instead of
gpg, which causes the attempted installation.

But I'm just speculating without more details.

-- 
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071205092121.1c8dcaac.wmoran>