Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:32:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net> To: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports management in 4.11 Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0703291930240.4129@white.nat.fasttrackmonkey.com> In-Reply-To: <4600CB16.1010509@u.washington.edu> References: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0703202350460.15390@white.nat.fasttrackmonkey.com> <4600CB16.1010509@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Charles Sprickman wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I understand 4.11 is dead, but I've still got about 20 odd boxes to take >> care of for the next few months until we can figure out what breaks in 6.x >> for us. >> >> I saw that it's recommended to use the "RELEASE_4_EOL" tag when updating >> the ports tree to make sure that we have a stable ports tree that should >> (mostly) build on 4.11. No problems there, we can deal with freezing >> everything at the date that tag came out... >> >> However, we do make extensive use of portupgrade and the version tagged >> there is known to be buggy. So I'd like to keep my current version of >> portupgrade (2.2.6_2.2) installed. Should this work? >> >> Running "pkgdb -F" to fix up deps gives me this: >> >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1765:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1766:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1767:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> /usr/ports/INDEX:1768:Port info line must consist of 10 fields. >> >> I'm guessing something here is not in sync or my cvsup "downgrade" to the >> EOL tag perhaps didn't remove everything. >> >> portupgrade also still thinks that tools that came from >> /usr/port/ports-mgmt still live in that directory rather than in >> /usr/ports/sysutils (as they do with the EOL tag): >> >> toolbox[/usr/ports]# pkgdb -F >> cd: can't cd to /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/portupgrade >> ---> Checking the package registry database >> Stale origin: 'ports-mgmt/pkg_install': perhaps moved or obsoleted. >> [/usr/ports/INDEX.db: unexpected file type or format -- Invalid argument] >> [Updating the portsdb <format:bdb_btree> in /usr/ports ... - 15969 port >> entries found /usr/ports/INDEX.db: unexpected file type or format -- >> Invalid argument: Cannot update the portsdb! (/usr/ports/INDEX.db)] >> database file error >> [Updating the portsdb <format:bdb_btree> in /usr/ports ... - 15969 port >> entries found >> .........1000.........2000.........3000.........4000.........5000.........6000.........7000.........8000.........9000.........10000.........11000.........12000.........13000.........14000.........15000......... >> ..... done] >> Skip this for now? [yes] >> >> What do I need to get in order to have this all work relatively smoothly >> until we can get everything upgraded to 6.x? >> >> Sadly(?), most of the port management tools have "just worked" for me, so >> I've never really gone looking under the hood that much. >> >> Any advice is appreciated... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Charles > > Newer version of portupgrade / pkgdb should have fixed this IIRC. Look into > the archives a few days and you'll find the thread. I'm still messing around with this, but to reiterate, while my ports tree is back to the EOL tag, I am using the latest/greatest portupgrade/pkgdb. In fact, that's basically necessary since the portupgrade in the EOL branch is broken. Thanks, Charles > -Garrett >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSX.4.64.0703291930240.4129>