On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:09:38 +0200, Baptiste wrote: >On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:02:11AM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> > >> >> root:/tmp # portupgrade -nr dbus >> >> ---> Session started at: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:08:37 +0200 >> >> ** Port marked as IGNORE: devel/dbus: >> >> pkg(8) must be version 1.3.8 or greater, but you have 1.3.7. >> >> You must upgrade pkg(8) first >> >> ** Port marked as IGNORE: devel/eggdbus: >> >> pkg(8) must be version 1.3.8 or greater, but you have 1.3.7. >> >> You must upgrade pkg(8) first >> >> ** Port marked as IGNORE: sysutils/policykit: >> >> pkg(8) must be version 1.3.8 or greater, but you have 1.3.7. >> >> You must upgrade pkg(8) first >> >> ** Port marked as IGNORE: devel/gconf2: >> >> pkg(8) must be version 1.3.8 or greater, but you have 1.3.7. >> >> You must upgrade pkg(8) first >> >> ** Port marked as IGNORE: devel/dbus-glib: >> >> pkg(8) must be version 1.3.8 or greater, but you have 1.3.7. >> >> You must upgrade pkg(8) first >> >> ** Port marked as IGNORE: sysutils/polkit: >> >> pkg(8) must be version 1.3.8 or greater, but you have 1.3.7. >> >> You must upgrade pkg(8) first >> >> ** Port marked as IGNORE: devel/dconf: >> >> pkg(8) must be version 1.3.8 or greater, but you have 1.3.7. >> >> You must upgrade pkg(8) first >> >> ---> Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed) >> >> - devel/dbus (marked as IGNORE) >> >> - devel/eggdbus (marked as IGNORE) >> >> - sysutils/policykit (marked as IGNORE) >> >> - devel/gconf2 (marked as IGNORE) >> >> - devel/dbus-glib (marked as IGNORE) >> >> - sysutils/polkit (marked as IGNORE) >> >> - devel/dconf (marked as IGNORE) >> >> ---> Packages processed: 0 done, 7 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed >> >> ---> Session ended at: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:08:37 +0200 (consumed >> >> 00:00:00) >> >> >> >> root:/tmp # portupgrade pkg >> >> >> >> root:/tmp # pkg upgrade pkg >> >> Updating FreeBSD repository catalogue... >> >> FreeBSD repository is up-to-date. >> >> All repositories are up-to-date. >> >> Checking integrity... done (0 conflicting) >> >> Your packages are up to date. >> >> >> >> root:/tmp # >> >> >> >> what am I missing? >> >> >> > >> > You are using portupgrade so first upgrade pkg with portupgrade >> > >> > >> >> Just a thought here - why (like .rpm and .deb - and the reason I hate >> them so much) are you making the package manager version a dependency of >> a package? I can understand if there are new features that you may need >> to use a later version to get those features, but making a package >> dependent on the package manager rather than displaying a warning that a >> feature is missing is the brain dead way that plagues upgrades for >> redhat and debian. Of course if your intent is to make FreeBSD into >> another Linux distro just with a different kernel, continue. >> > >There are new feature, that is why, the required version will be only bumped >when there will be new features used by the ports tree, not on every pkg bump > >regards, >Bapt
I apologise if this isn't the right place to provide this feedback, but I just ran into this same problem while trying to reinstall mariadb 5.5 under 9.2. The way pkg was made mandatory didn't conform to industry best-practice, which is to schedule by release version not some arbitrary date. Pkg should have been made available in, say, v8.0, but not made mandatory until, say, v10.0 regardless of the date v10.0 was released. The mandate should definitely not have splashed back onto earlier versions. There's another problem that's very noticeable, and we see it here. The whole purpose of a makefile is to make it unnecessary for every human to check dependencies and update them by hand. Makefiles have no other reason for existing. But, even though they are extremely complex and hard to modify successfully, FreeBSD makefiles still don't even try to handle updating all dependencies, which is why portmaster and portupgrade had to be written. But they should handle all updating, because that's why they exist. If they can't handle them, then perhaps pulling in hundreds or thousands of snippets of code from all around the planet is the wrong model today, and the functionality should be aggregated into a few larger libraries. And of course that's aside from the issue already raised by Michelle about whether a utility tool that won't be a link module should ever be a dependency at all. best regards, Margaret _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
