From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 9 10:53:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032B316A4BF for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B1D43FE5 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:52:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jester@panix.com) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [166.84.1.2]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76CF848733; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jester@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.11.6p2/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id h89HqYO19420; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:52:34 -0400 From: Jesse Sheidlower To: Matthew Seaman , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030909175234.GA19295@panix.com> References: <20030909140034.GA29625@panix.com> <20030909141650.GB5617@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <20030909143450.GA9310@panix.com> <20030909164947.GA6676@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030909164947.GA6676@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: Upgrading self-installed X with Ports version? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:53:03 -0000 On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Hmmm... I don't see the XFree86-Server port there. You may have an X > Server installed, but because the system doesn't recognise it as part > of an installed port, it isn't attempting to upgrade it. > > You can always force the port to reinstall: > > # portinstall -fN x11-servers/XFree86-4-Server > > Although the ports system is very good at ensuring all of the > dependencies of a package are met, it does that by checking that key > executables or shared libraries or whatever are installed, rather than > checking the database of installed ports. Also, when you run > pkgdb(1), it's possible to tell the package database to forget about a > dependency. This, although it seems like a golden opportunity for > foot-shooting, is actually a clever move that allows you to mix > together 3rd party software installed by hand with software installed > from the ports system. Although there's very little reason nowadays > to go outside ports. Thanks! This worked perfectly. Now I just have to fix my lousy config files.... Jesse Sheidlower