From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 14 08:08:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB8437B401 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web9605.mail.yahoo.com (web9605.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.184]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5007943FD7 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:07:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chancedj@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20030714150729.84049.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.14.253.21] by web9605.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:07:29 PDT Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:07:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Daryl Chance To: Michael Edenfield In-Reply-To: <20030714145545.GA46755@basement.kutulu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Tim Kellers Subject: Re: portupgrade/make install problem. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: chancedj@yahoo.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:08:06 -0000 cool. thanks for the patch and the info. Would it be fine for me to sync the 4.8 source and just install the pkg_install utils? (pkg_*). I know the question was asked previously, but I didn't see any answer. I assume that it would be fine, but I don't want to screw something up if I do install them. PS: For some reason, yahoo has put your last 2 (this and the previous email) into, basically, the spam folder. Very wierd. --- Michael Edenfield wrote: > * Daryl Chance [030714 10:47]: > > Thanks. I just saw the posts in the archive, but > not > > a patch like Mr Edenfield posted. I would like to > > propose a patch of my own. Yours looks like it > would > > work well, but it negates the FORCE_PKG_REGISTER > env > > and NO_PKG_REGISTER env (If I follow the code > > correctly). My patch just modifies the pkg_info > > command to only add -O if the OSVERSION >= 470000. > > > It's not tested since I don't know the language > syntax > > for whever code that is :). So please, feel free > to > > fix it. > > The problem is, that without the -O the entire check > fails. The -O > parameter to pkg_info takes a port origin > (basically, the relative > directory from /usr/ports of the port) and returns a > list of packages > that were originally installed from there. Without > -O, > > pkg_info -q > > just returns an error that it couldn't find the > package. > > I did the patch in a hurry, and don't have anything > before 4.8 to test > on, but the logic seemed good to me. We don't want > to do this check > if either FORCE_PKG_REGISTER or NO_PKG_REGISTER are > defined, and can't > if OSVERSION is not at least 470000. I'll try to > find a machine to > drop 4.6 on and test today, unless someone beats me > to it. > > --Mike > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com